• 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 사이트 infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision-making. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is not consistent and its definition and evaluation requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1), 프라그마틱 정품인증 체험 (bookmarkspot.win) which are intended to provide a more thorough confirmation of an idea.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like the quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters 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. In the end the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as possible. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are in opposition to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This could lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. Explanatory trials test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship within idealised settings. In this way, pragmatic trials can have a lower internal validity than explanation studies and be more prone to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the main outcome and the method for missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without damaging the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. The majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't as common and are only pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the risk of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the trial results can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore reduce the power of a study to detect even minor effects of treatment.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale which indicated that 1 was more informative and 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 built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study should not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are increasing numbers of clinical trials which use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more widespread and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include patient populations that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic trials may be prone to limitations that compromise their validity and generalizability. For instance, participation rates in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed variations aren't due to biases during the trial.

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

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.