• 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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as it is to actual clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could cause bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 무료체험; Images.google.Be, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is essential to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting up, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the delivery of intervention, 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 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for 프라그마틱 순위 pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They involve patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in 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 used to evaluate the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Studies that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot ensure that a study is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.