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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, 프라그마틱 정품인증 체험 (Click That Link) open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and 프라그마틱 체험 Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could result in bias in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, 슬롯 analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the principal outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.