• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for 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 should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, 프라그마틱 불법 to ensure that their findings are generalizable to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results 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 within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can be a valuable source of information for decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in 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 a trial could be designed with effective pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to judge the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the norm, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. The right kind of heterogeneity, like could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in 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 organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world care alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 (just click the next document) as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published until 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic pragmatic (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 high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. According to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and relevant results.