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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that facilitates research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse impacts. 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 utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (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 as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 - maps.google.com.sa, decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with effective practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues 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 can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Furthermore the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to delays, inaccuracies or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For instance, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework that can differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in the 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 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is an increasing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither precise nor sensitive). The use of these words in abstracts and titles could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that come with the reliance on volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the need to recruit participants on time. Additionally, some pragmatic trials lack 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 published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the pragmatism of these trials. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility as well as adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and 프라그마틱 불법 relevant to everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.