• 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 collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, design, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians as this could cause bias in the estimation of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Additionally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. 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 provides an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than studies that explain and are more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the level of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a binary attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. Most were also single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. The right type of heterogeneity, like could help a study generalise its findings to many different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and 슬롯 scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 developed an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat manner however some explanation trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). 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 content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to utilize existing data sources, 프라그마틱 순위 and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

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 employed to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, 프라그마틱 이미지 and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a definite characteristic and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (Bookmarkbirth.Com) a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.