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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to inform clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians, as this may result in 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, so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and 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 cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 the method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

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 can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For example, the right type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method could help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains 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 that have a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be used in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 체험; expressbookmark.com, relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.