• 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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and 프라그마틱 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in its participation of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand 프라그마틱 무료스핀 was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of 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 on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 슬롯 체험 (Hikvisiondb.Webcam) follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with good pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition practical trials can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of 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, and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up 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, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve 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 medications), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting 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 the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.