GOUTERGALLERY

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, such as its selection of participants, setting up and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied 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 especially important for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29, for instance focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should aim to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than explanatory 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 to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool assesses the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were not at the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

It is, however, difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is since pragmatism is not a binary quality; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A common feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to reporting delays, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is crucial to improve the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism does not require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could help a study extend its findings to different settings or patients. However, the wrong type can decrease the sensitivity of the test, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using a variety of definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove a clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was composed of nine domains evaluated on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

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

The difference in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in an intention to treat method while some explanation trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials that employ the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate an increased awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's not clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the value of real world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments in development. They have patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their effectiveness and generalizability. For example, participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 (Https://Mysocialname.Com/) competition for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 participants from other research studies (e.g., 프라그마틱 추천 industry trials). The necessity to recruit people in a timely fashion also limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

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

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors claim that these traits can make pragmatic trials more effective and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a pragmatic trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.