• 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 collects and distributes cleaned 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 studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료체험 슬롯버프 (maps.google.com.Ua) clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and 프라그마틱 무료게임 analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as possible by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but have features that are 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 usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. 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 to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the principal outcome and 프라그마틱 추천 method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not quite as typical and 프라그마틱 무료게임 can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays, errors or coding differences. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. 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 included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ 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 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 becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may 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). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in the daily practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic and 프라그마틱 데모 a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.