자유게시판

• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide clinical practices and policy choices, rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as similar to actual clinical practice as is possible, including the participation of participants, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analyses. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Truely pragmatic trials should not conceal participants or the clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of the effect of treatment. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be generalized to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are important for patients, such as quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve invasive procedures or have potentially serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be incorporated into real-world routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may be less reliable 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 decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organisation, 프라그마틱 무료게임 flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the results.

It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of pragmatism a trial is, since pragmaticity is not a definite quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and 프라그마틱 환수율 can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have lower statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting 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 corrected for covariates' differences at the baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can present challenges in the collection and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in a trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that all trials be 100 percent pragmatic, there are some advantages to incorporating pragmatic components into clinical trials. These include:

By incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may have disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory studies that support 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 that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domain can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence grows commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This approach has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational research which include the biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely manner also limits the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed variations aren't due to biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence, and follow-up. They discovered 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 rating tend to have more expansive eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free from bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.