• 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 clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians in order to cause bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term must be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform policy or 무료 프라그마틱 clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting 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 corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Additionally, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

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

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can reduce the sensitivity of an assay, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and 프라그마틱 환수율 Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they 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 systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on the organization, 무료 프라그마틱 flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). 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 manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Suggested Web page) follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or 프라그마틱 게임 pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, 프라그마틱 and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.