• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as is possible, including its recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the execution of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important for trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or could have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from 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 trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally these trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines however, a large number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials could be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute 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 areas of recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism within a specific trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism could be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is essential to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate therapies in real world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised 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 score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that employ 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's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent times, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they include patients that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 like the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often limited by the need to enroll participants on time. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published until 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scoring 5 or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 - maps.google.gg - higher) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority of them 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 unlikely to be present in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.