• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that have different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed 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 possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for 프라그마틱 환수율 무료 (mozillabd.Science) data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. Therefore, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains, ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice, and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료체험 a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a significant problem since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge 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 prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also 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 type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Numerous studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.