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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across 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", 프라그마틱 추천 however, is used inconsistently and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 its definition and evaluation need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the use of the term must be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical trial it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism a trial is since the pragmatism score is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and are only called pragmatic if the sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties 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 delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

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

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may 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

As the value of real-world evidence grows popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, including the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from various hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in everyday practice. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.