• 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 gathers 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 not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy choices, rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians, as this may cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when trials involve the use of invasive procedures or could have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, 프라그마틱 무료 (Topsocialplan.com) many RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of practical features is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures 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 domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

However, it is difficult to judge how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Therefore, they aren't quite as typical and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, 슬롯 and are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces 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). However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 but it isn't clear if this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach can help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is completely free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.