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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

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

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as it is to the real-world clinical practice that include recruiting participants, setting, design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could cause bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied 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 for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as they can by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 환수율 (Mysocialport.com) pragmatic research can provide valuable information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with effective pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific attribute. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring 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.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic There are advantages of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its findings to a variety of settings and patients. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

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

It is important to note that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may signal a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 however it's not clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may 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). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores are likely to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday practice. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed attribute the test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield valuable and valid results.