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 shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to evaluate the effect of treatment on trials with different levels of pragmatism, as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and measurement need further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruitment of participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may result in bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, so that their results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must concentrate on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving invasive procedures or those with potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection 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. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these criteria however, a large number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study it is the intention to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials may have less internal validity than studies that explain and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can provide valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that a trial can be designed with good pragmatic features, without compromising its quality.

However, 프라그마틱 순위 이미지 (idea.informer.com) it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial may be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 데모 colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and can only be called pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in these trials.

A typical feature of pragmatic studies is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. However, this can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the likelihood of missing or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not corrected for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Incorporating routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials have their disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

Several studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials using various definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being more informative and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment setting, setting, intervention delivery with flexibility, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation to this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope that was easier to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, and indeed there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. The use of these words in abstracts and titles could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent times, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients that are more similar to those treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., 프라그마틱 정품인증 existing medications) and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with reliance on volunteers, and the limited availability and coding variability in national registry systems.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition, some pragmatic trials do not have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to interventions, 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, which include very specific criteria that aren't likely to be present in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a definite characteristic and a test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.