자유게시판

• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It collects and distributes clean trial data, ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and assessment need further clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices which include the recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination 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 way.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians in order to lead to bias in estimates of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have harmful adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system to monitor the health of patients admitted to hospitals with chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 used symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Finally pragmatic trials should strive to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform clinical or policy 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 causal-effect relationship in idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study the domains of recruitment, organisation and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method of missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial that has high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is difficult to determine the amount of pragmatism in a particular trial because pragmatism does not possess a specific characteristic. Some aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. 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 norm and are only considered pragmatic if the sponsors agree that these trials are not blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. This can result in imbalanced analyses and 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 corrected for differences in covariates at baseline.

Additionally practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of outcome ascertainment in these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on a trial's own database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism does not mean that trials must be 100 percent pragmatic, there are advantages of including pragmatic elements in clinical trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be translated more quickly into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have disadvantages. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its findings to a variety of patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitivity and therefore lessen the ability of a study to detect even minor 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 effects of treatment.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, using various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 was more pragmatic. The domains covered recruitment of intervention, setting up, delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was an adapted version of the PRECIS tool3 that was based on the same scale and domains. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, 프라그마틱 플레이 known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyse data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is not specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstract or title. These terms could indicate an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world treatment options with experimental treatments in development. They involve patient populations closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, for 프라그마틱 플레이 example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, like the ability to draw on existing data sources and a greater chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, these tests could be prone to limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The necessity to recruit people quickly reduces the size of the sample and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to evaluate pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria as well as recruitment flexibility and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores tend to have broader criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also include patients from a variety of hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and useful for 프라그마틱 사이트 환수율 (Gorillasocialwork.com) everyday practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is completely free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic the test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.