• 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 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that have 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. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truly pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must 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 dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific 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 logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 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 can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such 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 lead to unbalanced comparisons and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슬롯체험 (Matkafasi.com) lower statistical power, thereby increasing the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not sensitive nor specific) that employ the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism, however, it is not clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, 무료 프라그마틱 the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.