GOUTERGALLERY

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to the real-world clinical environment as is possible, including its participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a key distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more thorough proof of a hypothesis.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to attract patients from a wide range of health care settings so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the procedures for conducting trials and 프라그마틱 플레이 data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their results as relevant to real-world clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of different types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a practical study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine treatment in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were not at the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a single characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol changes during a trial can change its pragmatism score. In addition 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted before licensing, and the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the usual practice, and can only be referred to as pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the time of baseline.

In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 pragmatic trials can also have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcomes for these trials, ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism may not mean that trials must be 100% pragmatic, there are some advantages to including pragmatic components in clinical trials. These include:

Incorporating routine patients, the results of trials can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm the clinical or physiological hypothesis as well as 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 evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (http://Bbs.lingshangkaihua.com) as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler 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.

This difference in primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of organization, flexible delivery, and following-up were combined.

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

Conclusions

As the importance of evidence from the real world becomes more popular the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives instead of experimental treatments under development. They include populations of patients which are more closely resembling the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome limitations of observational studies that are prone to limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, like the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their credibility and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants in a timely manner. In addition, 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 pragmatic and were published from 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the domains eligibility criteria, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored pragmatic or highly sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or more) in any one or more of these domains and that the majority of these were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these traits can make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is free from bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in a trial is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not contain all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valid and useful results.