• 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 is a platform that collects and shares clean 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. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and evaluation need further clarification. Pragmatic trials are intended to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions rather than confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting, designing, implementation and delivery of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analysis. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as defined by Schwartz & Lellouch1 that are designed to test a hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or clinicians. This can result in a bias in the estimates of treatment effects. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings to ensure that their findings can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important in trials that involve invasive procedures or those with potential dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example focused on the functional outcome to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (https://www.google.pl/url?q=https://telegra.ph/The-Reasons-To-Focus-On-Enhancing-Pragmatic-Game-09-12) the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be made more uniform. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial the goal is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool measures the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't possess a specific attribute. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by modifications to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that they are not as common and can only be described as pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers try to make their results more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses that have less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

Additionally, studies that are pragmatic may pose challenges to gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and are prone to reporting errors, delays or coding errors. It is essential to increase the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces cost and size of the study, and enabling the trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic studies can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently lessen the ability of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support a physiological or clinical hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 developed an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for 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 can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery, and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does 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 not precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear whether this is evident in the content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they include patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine medical care, they utilize comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g. existing medications) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method has the potential to overcome the limitations of observational studies that are prone to biases associated with reliance on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher likelihood of detecting meaningful distinctions from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and 프라그마틱 generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the health-promoting effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also limited by the need to enroll participants quickly. In addition certain 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 48 RCTs that self-described themselves as pragmatist and published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism by using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in intervention adherence 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.

Trials that have a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. According to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 relevant to the daily practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.