GOUTERGALLERY

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that enables research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires further 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 close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of treatment effects. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its 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. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. Consequently, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicit) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method of missing data fell below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with effective practical features, yet not damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not have a single attribute. Some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than other. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. In addition 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. Therefore, they aren't very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to imbalanced analyses and lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem during the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes assessment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to expand its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce the sensitivity of an assay and thus decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale of 1 to 5, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 featured similar domains and scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment called the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores across all domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Certain explanatory trials however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither specific nor sensitive) that use the term "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 pragmatic trials are increasing in popularity in research because the importance of real-world evidence is becoming increasingly acknowledged. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments under development, they have patient populations that more closely mirror the ones who are treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs), and they rely on participant self-report of outcomes. This method could help overcome the limitations of observational studies which include the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 데모 (advicebookmarks.com) the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The need to recruit individuals quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to evaluate pragmatism. It includes areas such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored pragmatic or highly pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in one or more of these domains and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a predetermined characteristic and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield reliable and 프라그마틱 데모 relevant results.