• 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, 프라그마틱 게임 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (simply click the following internet site) ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological studies to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analysis. This is a major distinction between explanation-based trials, as defined by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or clinicians, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from different healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore studies that are pragmatic should focus on outcomes that are vital to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic heart failure. The catheter trial28 however, used symptomatic catheter associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism and the use of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that provides an objective, standardized evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world situations. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and are more susceptible to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains were awarded high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, yet not compromising its quality.

However, it's difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because pragmatism is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. Most were also single-center. They are not close to the standard practice, and can only be considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups within the trial. This can result in unbalanced analyses with less statistical power. This increases the risk of omitting or misinterpreting 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 baseline.

In addition, pragmatic studies can present challenges in the collection and interpretation safety data. This is because adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 or coding variations. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome assessment in these trials, ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into 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 patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have disadvantages. For example, the right type of heterogeneity can help the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework for distinguishing between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis as well as pragmatic trials that aid in the selection of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains that were scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was built on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed 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 but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyse their data in the intention to treat way, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a study that is pragmatic does not mean a low-quality trial. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the term 'pragmatic' either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is neither sensitive nor precise). The use of these words in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism, but it isn't clear if this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials are becoming more popular in research as the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with clinical trials in development. They include patient populations closer to those treated in regular care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, like the ability to use existing data sources and a higher probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, these trials could have some limitations that limit their validity and generalizability. For example the participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect and 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 the impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published from 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in clinical practice, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they do not guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't possess all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valuable and reliable results.