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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and 프라그마틱 무료체험 infrastructure that facilitates research on 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 compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are intended to provide a more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or healthcare professionals in order to cause distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. The trial with a catheter, however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its 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 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by ensuring that their primary analysis is 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 different types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may provide valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This indicates that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and are only considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all clinical trials are 100% pragmatist There are advantages when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could help a study extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, 프라그마틱 순위 and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more explanatory while 5 was more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 [resource for this article] domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze 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 areas of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles 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 the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained popularity in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development. They have patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, as well as a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. In addition some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more effective and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explanation study could still yield reliable and beneficial results.