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 facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2 which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that employ different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic studies 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 clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 rather than confirm a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as close as is possible to real-world clinical practices, including recruiting participants, setting, designing, delivery and implementation of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a major distinction from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) which are intended to provide a more complete confirmation of the hypothesis.

Trials that are truly pragmatic should be careful not to blind patients or the clinicians in order to lead to distortions in estimates of the effect of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to enroll patients from a variety of health care settings so that their results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should focus on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29, for example was focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for monitoring of patients in hospitals suffering from chronic heart failure, and the catheter trial28 utilized urinary tract infections caused by catheters as its primary outcome.

In addition to these features, pragmatic trials should minimize trial procedures and data-collection requirements to cut costs and time commitments. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as applicable to current clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring that their primary analysis is based on the intention to treat approach (as defined in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the requirements for pragmatism but contain features contrary to pragmatism, have been published in journals of various types and incorrectly labeled as pragmatic. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of practical features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial it is the intention to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This is different from explanatory trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic studies can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment, organization, flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data fell below the limit of practicality. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its outcomes.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a single attribute. Some aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications made during a trial can change its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. This means that 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 these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more valuable by studying subgroups of the trial sample. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of omitting or ignoring differences in the primary outcomes. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not adjusted for covariates that differed at the baseline.

In addition practical trials can have challenges with respect to the collection and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and are susceptible to delays in reporting, inaccuracies, or coding variations. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

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

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces the size of studies and their costs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 and enabling the trial results to be faster transferred into real-world clinical practice (by including patients who are routinely treated). However, pragmatic studies can also have drawbacks. The right type of heterogeneity, for example, can help a study generalise its findings to many different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity and, consequently, reduce a trial's power to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between explanation-based trials that support the clinical or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (https://fredj922bpk0.Hazeronwiki.com) physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the choice of appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical setting. The framework was comprised of nine domains that were scored on a scale ranging from 1-5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 suggesting more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, 라이브 카지노 follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation to this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope that was simpler to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of 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 analyse data. Some explanatory trials, however do not. The overall score was lower for systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains of organisation, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 follow-up were combined.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a low quality trial, and there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific nor sensitive) which use the word 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could indicate a greater understanding of the importance of pragmatism but it is unclear whether this is manifested in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence grows popular, pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that evaluate real-world alternatives to clinical trials in development. They are conducted with populations of patients that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular care. This approach could help overcome the limitations of observational research which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and limited availability and the variability of coding in national registry systems.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting significant changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and the impact of many practical trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that any observed differences aren't caused by biases in the trial.

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

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, may make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a fixed attribute and a pragmatic trial that does not have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can yield valuable and reliable results.