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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure that supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean 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 studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, 프라그마틱 환수율 (just click the up coming post) determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians in order to cause distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have less internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, 프라그마틱 환수율 with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Additionally practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the sensitivity of an assay and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domain can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to enroll participants quickly. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic practical (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. Moreover, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.