• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings, and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for diverse meta-epidemiological analyses that evaluate the effects of treatment across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic trials are becoming more widely acknowledged as providing evidence from the real world to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic", however, is used inconsistently and its definition and evaluation require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to guide clinical practice and policy decisions, rather than confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should aim to be as close as possible to actual clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting, 슬롯 design, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant distinction from explanation trials (as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1) that are designed to provide more thorough proof of the hypothesis.

Studies that are truly practical should avoid attempting to blind participants or healthcare professionals, as this may lead to bias in the estimation of the effects of treatment. Pragmatic trials should also seek to recruit patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be compared to the real world.

Furthermore, trials that are pragmatic must focus on outcomes that matter to patients, like quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials involving surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential serious 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 its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the trial procedures and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. Additionally the aim of pragmatic trials is to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as they can. This can be achieved by ensuring their primary analysis is based on the intention-to treat approach (as described within CONSORT extensions).

Despite these guidelines, many RCTs with features that challenge pragmatism have been incorrectly self-labeled pragmatic and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the use of the term should be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers an objective standard for assessing pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a practical trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into everyday routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses regarding the causal-effect relationship in idealized settings. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and 슬롯 analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the areas of recruitment, organization and flexibility in delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up received high scores. However, the principal outcome and method of missing data scored below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

However, it is difficult to judge how practical a particular trial is since pragmaticity is not a definite attribute; some aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic modifications made during the trial may alter its pragmatism score. Koppenaal and colleagues discovered that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. They are not in line with the standard practice and are only referred to as pragmatic if their sponsors accept that these trials are not blinded.

A common aspect of pragmatic research is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups of the trial sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or misinterpreting the results of the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials can also present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to delays, errors or coding differences. It is crucial to increase the accuracy and quality of the results in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatist there are benefits of including pragmatic elements in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the results of the trial can be more quickly translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials can also have drawbacks. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a study to generalize its results to many different settings and patients. However the wrong kind of heterogeneity may reduce the assay's sensitivity, and thus lessen the ability of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A variety of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains that were assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains included recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal et al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment dubbed the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use in systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average across all domains, however they scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

The difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials analyze their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 [pragmatic19864.Blogzet.com] follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not mean that a trial is of poor quality. In fact, there is a growing number of clinical trials that use the word 'pragmatic,' either in their title or abstract (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may indicate a greater awareness of pragmatism within abstracts and titles, however it's unclear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly popular, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are clinical trials randomized that evaluate real-world alternatives to care rather than experimental treatments under development, they involve populations of patients that more closely mirror those treated in routine care, they use comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g., existing medications), and they depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research for example, the biases associated with the reliance on volunteers, as well as the insufficient availability and coding variations in national registries.

Other benefits of pragmatic trials include the ability to utilize existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, these trials could still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as 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 reduces the size of the sample and impact of many pragmatic trials. Additionally 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-described themselves as pragmatic and that were published up to 2022. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool, which consists of the eligibility criteria for domains, recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention and follow-up. They found that 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or 프라그마틱 무료체험 above) in at least one of these domains.

Trials that have high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more useful and useful in the daily clinical. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial is free of bias. The pragmatism is not a fixed characteristic; a pragmatic test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study could still yield valid and useful outcomes.