• 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 collects and distributes cleaned trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of various levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition as well as assessment requires further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, not to confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should strive to be as close to actual clinical practice as possible, such as its participation of participants, setting up and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, 프라그마틱 정품 as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to test the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Truely pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or clinicians. This can lead to an overestimation of treatment effects. Practical trials also involve patients from different health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potentially serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for instance was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 focused on symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial's procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. In the end, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that do not meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims about pragmatism, and the term's use should be made more uniform. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide a standardized objective evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how an intervention could be integrated into routine treatment in real-world situations. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the causal-effect relationship in idealized environments. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable information for decision-making within the context of healthcare.

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

However, it is difficult to determine how pragmatic a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite characteristic; 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 identified by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. They are not close to the usual practice and are only called pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic studies is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the possibility of omitting or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcomes. This was the case in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials as secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism may not require that all trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity for instance could allow a study to extend its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study 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 have developed a framework that can distinguish between explanatory studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included 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 and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores across all domains, but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of the organization, flexibility of 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 rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is not specific or sensitive) that use the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within titles and abstracts, but it's unclear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular and 프라그마틱 플레이 pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care instead of experimental treatments in development. They have 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 medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases that arise from relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant distinctions from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials may be lower than anticipated because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed differences aren't caused by biases during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered that 14 of the trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e. scores of 5 or higher) in any 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 unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they include populations from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (https://www.google.com.uy/url?q=https://postheaven.net/Rangeskin5/why-all-the-fuss-over-pragmatic-experience) useful for everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free of bias. The pragmatism characteristic is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic test that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce reliable and beneficial results.