• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on trials that employ 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. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in its selection of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 정품확인 (Https://king-wifi.win) as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or clinicians, as this may cause bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections caused by catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relation within idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, inaccuracies, or coding variations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. For example, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (socialbookmark.Stream) the right kind of heterogeneity can allow a trial to generalise its findings to a variety of patients and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. Additionally certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate the degree of pragmatism. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of them were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be found in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in the daily clinical. However they do not guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valuable and valid results.