• 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 studies to examine the effects of treatment across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as 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 not uniform and its definition as well as assessment requires clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to inform policy and clinical practice decisions, rather than to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to the real-world clinical practice, including recruiting participants, setting, design, delivery and execution of interventions, determining and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a key difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are designed to provide more complete confirmation of an idea.

Truly pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to bias in the estimations of treatment effects. Pragmatic trials will also recruit patients from different health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Finally, pragmatic trials must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is especially important when trials involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to evaluate a two-page case report with an electronic system for the monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure. In addition, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the trial procedures and data collection requirements to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should try to make their results as applicable to real-world 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 requirements, a number of RCTs with features that defy pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the usage of the term should be standardised. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides an objective and standard assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study, the aim is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be implemented into routine care. Explanatory trials test hypotheses about the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design as well as analysis and conduct. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organisation, flexibility in delivery, flexibility in adherence, and follow-up scored high. However, the primary outcome and the method for missing data was scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with excellent pragmatic features without harming the quality of the outcomes.

It is hard to determine the amount of pragmatism that is present in a trial because pragmatism does not have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a study may be more pragmatic than other. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by changes to the protocol or the logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted before approval and a majority of them were single-center. This means that they are not quite as typical and can only be called pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the sample. This can lead to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or 프라그마틱 불법 misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials because secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at baseline.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are typically self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Enhancing sensitivity to issues in the real world as well as reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be more quickly implemented into clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic trials be a challenge. For instance, the appropriate kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a study to detect small treatment effects.

Many studies have attempted classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework for distinguishing between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the selection of appropriate treatments in real-world clinical practice. Their framework included nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains included recruitment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 게임 (Https://infozillon.com/User/gunmass48) setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance 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 easier to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average score in most domains, with lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the primary analysis domains could be explained by the way most pragmatic trials analyze data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for pragmatic systematic reviews when the domains on organisation, 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 increasing numbers of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE, but that is not precise nor sensitive). The use of these terms in abstracts and titles may suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism however, it is not clear if this is reflected in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

In recent years, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 pragmatic trials have been 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 involve patient populations more closely resembling those treated in regular care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases that come with the use of volunteers and the limited availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, as well as a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, they may be prone to limitations that compromise their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). Practical trials are often restricted by the need to recruit participants quickly. Certain pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that observed differences 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 themselves as pragmatic. They assessed pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which includes the eligibility criteria for domains and recruitment criteria, as well as flexibility in intervention adherence and follow-up. They found that 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 broader eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that aren't likely to be used in the clinical environment, and they include populations from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Moreover, the pragmatism of the trial is not a definite characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.