코엔원

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 allowing for multiple and diverse meta-epidemiological studies that evaluate the effect of treatment on 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. However, the use of the term "pragmatic" is inconsistent and its definition and evaluation requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic study should aim to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the participation of participants, setting and design of the intervention, its delivery and implementation of the intervention, and the determination and analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from various health care settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving the use of invasive procedures or potentially dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29, for example, focused on functional outcomes to compare a two-page report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 focused on urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Finaly the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practice as is possible. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers an objective and standardized evaluation of the pragmatic characteristics is the first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This is different from explanatory trials that test hypotheses regarding the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanation studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decision-making in healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatist). 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 were below the practical limit. This indicates that a trial can be designed with good practical features, but without compromising its quality.

It is hard to determine the degree of pragmatism within a specific trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. A trial's pragmatism can be affected by changes to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. Thus, they are not very close to usual practice and can only be described as pragmatic if their sponsors are tolerant of the lack of blinding in such trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the possibility of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for differences in the baseline covariates.

In addition, pragmatic trials can also be a challenge in the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically reported by participants themselves and prone to reporting delays, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world which reduces cost and size of the study and allowing the study results to be more quickly translated into actual clinical practice (by including routine patients). However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity could help the trial to apply its results to many different patients and settings; however, the wrong type of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitiveness and consequently decrease the ability of a study to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created an approach to distinguish between explanatory trials that confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework consisted of nine domains that were evaluated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more lucid while 5 was more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention with flexibility, follow-up 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 and colleagues10 created an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for 프라그마틱 무료게임 systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in most domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be explained by the way that most pragmatic trials analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of organisation, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low quality trial, 프라그마틱 순위 데모 (https://maps.google.com.ua) and in fact there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) which use the word "pragmatic" in their abstracts or titles. These terms may signal that there is a greater appreciation of pragmatism in titles and abstracts, but it's unclear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

In recent years, pragmatic trials have been increasing in popularity in research because the value of real-world evidence is increasingly recognized. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method has the potential to overcome limitations of observational studies, such as the biases that arise from relying on volunteers and the lack of accessibility and coding flexibility in national registry systems.

Pragmatic trials offer other advantages, such as the ability to draw on existing data sources and a higher chance of detecting significant differences from traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their reliability and generalizability. The participation rates in certain trials could be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering 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 don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in trial conduct.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatic and were published up to 2022. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the domains eligibility criteria and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in adherence to interventions and follow-up. They found 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 추천 무료스핀 (listen to this podcast) higher) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with a high pragmatism rating tend to have broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are not likely to be found in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad variety 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 using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not possess all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valuable and valid results.