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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It 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 and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This can result in bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, on the other hand, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. In this way, 프라그마틱 정품 환수율 (http://www.viewtool.com/bbs/home.php?mod=space&uid=6493670) pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors accept that such trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and less statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem 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 pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, 슬롯 pragmatic trials may be a challenge. The right kind of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore reduce a trial's power to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more explanatory 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 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of 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 don't. The overall score was lower for 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료 슬롯 [www.028bbs.com wrote] pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific nor sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms could indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development, they involve patient populations that are more similar to those treated in routine care, they use comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs self-labeled as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It covers areas such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide range of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.