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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve invasive procedures or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 assessing practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. 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 norm, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays, or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are benefits to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for 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 domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료게임 (https://Securityholes.science/) which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.