• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or 무료 프라그마틱 policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at baseline.

In addition practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays in reporting, 프라그마틱 불법 inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development, they have populations of patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the lack of codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.