• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, 프라그마틱 환수율 conduct, and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, 프라그마틱 추천 flexible adherence, and follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, 프라그마틱 추천 without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

In addition the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding differences. It is crucial 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:

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study expand its findings to different patients or settings. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a clinical or 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. 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 and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly widespread, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations 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. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to daily practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.