• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 delivery and execution of interventions, determining and 프라그마틱 순위 analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a significant difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of an idea.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that the results can be generalized to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-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 the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their results as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or 프라그마틱 슬롯 clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, 프라그마틱 데모 protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in covariates at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or 프라그마틱 데모 coding variations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials are 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world, reducing cost and size of the study as well as allowing trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or 프라그마틱 데모 settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test and thus reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower 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 mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding 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 becomes increasingly popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They involve patient populations that more closely mirror those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). A lot of pragmatic trials are limited by the need to recruit participants in a timely manner. Additionally certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to determine the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.