자유게시판

• 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 distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and assessment requires further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to verify a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, 프라그마틱 게임 such as its recruitment of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals as this could result in bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should reduce the procedures for conducting trials and requirements for data collection to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This could lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study the areas of recruitment, organization as well as flexibility in delivery flexible adherence, and 프라그마틱 순위 follow-up were awarded high scores. However, the primary outcome and method of missing data were scored below the practical limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

However, it is difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice 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 relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, this can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at the baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding differences. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in 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 more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the assay sensitivity and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat manner while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however it is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstract or title. 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 evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They involve patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational studies, such as the limitations of relying on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and 무료 프라그마틱 추천, homepage, generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives, or competition from other research studies. A lot of pragmatic trials are restricted by the need to enroll participants in a timely manner. Additionally, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They discovered that 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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be used in the clinical environment, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and useful for everyday clinical practice, however they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanation study may still yield valid and useful outcomes.