• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, such as its participation of participants, setting and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as relevant to actual 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 have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. Thus, they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for 프라그마틱 정품인증 variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible compliance and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 데모 (zzb.Bz) primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain 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 merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor 프라그마틱 정품인증 sensitive). These terms may signal an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they include populations of patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they use comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases during 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 used to determine pragmatism. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, 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 with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed attribute the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.