• 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 shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in the recruitment of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a significant 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 not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians in order to result in bias in the estimation of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential for serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as 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 but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing practical features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the goal 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 cause-effect relationship within idealised conditions. In this way, 프라그마틱 무료게임 pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, 프라그마틱 정품확인 the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, yet not harming the quality of the trial.

It is, however, difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 protocol or logistic changes during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial sample. This can result in imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for the differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting errors, delays or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, 프라그마틱 플레이 and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed an approach to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework included nine domains, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all 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 approach data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organisation, 프라그마틱 정품확인 flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품확인 (via Medflyfish) sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are gaining popularity in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Practical trials are often restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also contain patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more effective and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory study may still yield reliable and beneficial results.