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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as is possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, 프라그마틱 불법 implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are intended to provide a more thorough proof of an idea.

Studies that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require the use of invasive procedures or could have dangerous adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements 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 achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but have features that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design analysis, conduct, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 and design. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, 프라그마틱 순위 without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Thus, 프라그마틱 순위 they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analyzing subgroups within the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity for instance, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and 프라그마틱 이미지 scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same 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 found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains 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 trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it is unclear whether this is evident in the contents of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror 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 approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatist and published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of these trials scored highly or pragmatic practical (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 high pragmatism scores are likely to have more lenient criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and useful in the daily practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.