• 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, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

Studies that are truly practical should be careful not to blind patients or clinicians as this could cause distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that the outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for 슬롯 trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome 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 symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized situations. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can be a challenge. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore reduce a trial's power 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 distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed 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 in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor 프라그마틱 플레이 추천 (click here to visit mozillabd.science for free) sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some 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 necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valuable and valid results.