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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유

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, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that examine the effects of treatment across trials with 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 inconsistent and its definition and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 evaluation requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians as this could lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from different health care settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, 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 could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform clinical or 프라그마틱 데모 policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship within idealised environments. In this way, pragmatic trials may have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism in an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explanatory) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, but the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism within a specific study because pragmatism is not a have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of an experiment can alter its pragmatism score. In addition 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 are not in line with the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors agree that the trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates' differences at the time of baseline.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to delays, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 errors or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100 100% pragmatic, there are advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, 프라그마틱 pragmatic trials be a challenge. The right type of heterogeneity, for example could help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various 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 selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat way however some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for 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 or sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their title or abstract. These terms may indicate that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is evident in content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to clinical trials in development. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, for example, the biases that are associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Additionally, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and 프라그마틱 추천 published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 as well as flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly practical (i.e., scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be present in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.