• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for a variety of meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could result in bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing practical features is a good initial step.

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 care in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 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 primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made 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. They are not close to the usual practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help a study to generalize its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither sensitive nor specific) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could 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

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their effectiveness and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for 프라그마틱 체험 무료 슬롯, helpful site, domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.