코엔원

• 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 compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide real-world evidence that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic", however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and evaluation require further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practices and policy decisions rather than prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruiting participants, setting up, delivery and implementation of interventions, determining and analysis outcomes, and primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

Trials that are truly pragmatic must be careful not to blind patients or clinicians in order to result in distortions in estimates of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a variety of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require invasive procedures or have potentially harmful adverse effects. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features pragmatic trials should also reduce trial procedures and data-collection requirements to reduce costs and time commitments. Finaly, pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring that their analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs which do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, however, they have characteristics that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term must be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a good initial step.

Methods

In a pragmatic research study it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. Explanatory trials test hypotheses concerning the cause-effect relation within idealized conditions. In this way, pragmatic trials could have a lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more prone to biases in their design, 프라그마틱 정품 analysis, and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials can contribute valuable information to decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, but 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 good pragmatic features without compromising the quality of its results.

However, it's difficult to judge how practical a particular trial really is because pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. The majority of them were single-center. They aren't in line with the standard practice and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials aren't blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials that were included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for differences in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. It is therefore important to enhance the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues as well as reducing the size of studies and their costs and allowing the study results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, 프라그마틱 체험 like could allow a study to generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can decrease the sensitivity of the test and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect small treatment effects.

Numerous 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 research studies that prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. Their framework comprised nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The initial PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher across all domains, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domain could be due to the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in an intention to treat way while some explanation trials do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains of the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE but which is not precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate an increased understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it isn't clear if this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been gaining popularity in research as the importance of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized clinical trials that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients which are more closely resembling those treated in routine care, they employ comparators that are used in routine practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their validity and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 generalizability. For instance the participation rates in certain trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the necessity to enroll participants in a timely manner. 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 RCTs published up to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It includes areas like eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment and adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found 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 broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in clinical practice, and they contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. The authors suggest that these traits can make the pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable to everyday practice, but they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a fixed attribute; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce reliable and relevant results.