솔지에로펜션(소나무숲길로)

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta is a free and non-commercial open data platform and infrastructure that facilitates research on pragmatic trials. It 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 with 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 measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials must be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm an hypothesis that is based on a clinical or physiological basis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and execution of the intervention, determination and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 analysis of outcomes as well as primary analysis. This is a major difference from explanatory trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough confirmation of the hypothesis.

The most pragmatic trials should not blind participants or the clinicians. This can lead to a bias in the estimates of the effects of treatment. The trials that are pragmatic should also try to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results are generalizable to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as the quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that involve the use of invasive procedures or potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2 page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The trial with a catheter, however utilized symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects pragmatic trials should reduce the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Furthermore, pragmatic trials should seek to make their results as applicable to real-world clinical practice as they can by making sure that their primary method of analysis is based on the intention-to-treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these criteria, many RCTs with features that defy the concept of pragmatism have been mislabeled as pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯스핀 [similar web page] and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The creation of a PRECIS-2 tool that can provide an objective and standardized assessment of pragmatic features is a first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating 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. Therefore, pragmatic trials might have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 conduct, and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may contribute valuable information to decision-making in the context of healthcare.

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

However, it's difficult to assess how practical a particular trial is, since pragmatism is not a binary attribute; some aspects of a study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol changes during an experiment can alter its score in pragmatism. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and colleagues were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They are not close to the standard practice and can only be referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors agree that such trials aren't blinded.

Additionally, a typical feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced results and lower statistical power, thereby increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for the differences in baseline covariates.

In addition practical trials can be a challenge in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is due to the fact that adverse events are usually self-reported and are prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding deviations. It is therefore crucial to improve the quality of outcomes ascertainment in these trials, in particular by using national registry databases instead of relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

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

By incorporating routine patients, the results of trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have drawbacks. The right amount of heterogeneity, like could allow a study to extend its findings to different settings or patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore decrease the ability of a study to detect minor treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials using different definitions and scoring methods. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis and pragmatic trials that help in the choice of appropriate therapies in real-world clinical practice. Their framework comprised nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating more lucid and 5 indicating more practical. The domains were recruitment and setting, delivery of intervention and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 was based on a similar scale and domains. Koppenaal et al10 created an adaptation of this assessment, dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic systematic reviews had a higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in 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 the organization, flexibility of delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that a pragmatic trial doesn't necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is a growing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but this is neither sensitive nor specific) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their title or abstract. These terms may signal a greater understanding of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear whether this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the importance of real-world evidence grows commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized which compare real-world treatment options instead of experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients that more closely mirror the patients who receive routine care, they employ comparators which exist in routine practice (e.g., existing medications) and depend on participants' self-reports of outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research, such as the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials include the possibility of using existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these tests could have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials could be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer influence and incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g., industry trials). The requirement to recruit participants in a timely fashion also restricts the sample size and impact of many pragmatic trials. Practical trials aren't always equipped with controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't caused by biases that occur during the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs published from 2022 to 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. The PRECIS-2 tool was used to assess pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered 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 higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs which have very specific criteria that are unlikely to be present in the clinical environment, and they comprise patients from a wide range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, could make pragmatic trials more useful and applicable in everyday clinical. However, they don't guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of a trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can produce valuable and reliable results.