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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across 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. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruitment of participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of a hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or clinicians, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and 프라그마틱 환수율 슈가러쉬; resources, published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 무료체험 (http://lzdsxxb.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=3174259) applicable to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.