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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and 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 permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: 프라그마틱 데모 delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score in pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or 프라그마틱 플레이 conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the norm and can only be called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that the trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. 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 included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for 프라그마틱 데모 the differences in the baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to 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 delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, 프라그마틱 데모 pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that prove a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. 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 an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might 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 impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and that were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or 프라그마틱 슬롯 pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.