• 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 gathers and distributes clean trial data, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 ratings and evaluations using PRECIS-2. This permits a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to examine the effect of treatment across trials with different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence to support clinical decision-making. The term "pragmatic" however, is not used in a consistent manner and its definition and assessment need further clarification. The purpose of pragmatic trials is to guide the practice of clinical medicine and policy decisions, not to confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic study should strive to be as close as possible to real-world clinical practices that include recruitment of participants, setting up, implementation and delivery of interventions, determination and analysis results, as well as primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1, which are designed to prove the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to an overestimation of the effects of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to attract patients from a variety of health care settings to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should 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 serious adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects the pragmatic trial should also reduce the procedures for conducting trials and data collection requirements in order to reduce costs. In the end, 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (webpage) pragmatic trials should aim to make their findings as relevant to actual clinical practices as possible. This can be accomplished by ensuring their primary analysis is based on an intention-to treat method (as described in CONSORT extensions).

Many RCTs that don't meet the criteria for pragmatism but have features that are contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of different kinds and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can lead to misleading claims of pragmatism and the term's use should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic characteristics is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention can be integrated into routine care in real-world settings. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised situations. Therefore, pragmatic trials might be less reliable than explanatory trials and may 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 evaluates an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging from 1 to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains received high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that a trial can be designed with well-thought-out practical features, but without damaging the quality.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism in a particular trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Additionally, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of a trial can change its pragmatism score. Additionally, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal et al were placebo-controlled, or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. They aren't in line with the norm, and can only be considered pragmatic if their sponsors accept that the trials are not blinded.

A typical feature of pragmatic research is that researchers try to make their findings more relevant by studying subgroups within the trial. This can lead to unbalanced analyses with lower statistical power. This increases the chance of missing or misdetecting differences in the primary outcomes. In the case of the pragmatic studies included in this meta-analysis this was a significant problem because the secondary outcomes weren't adjusted for variations in baseline covariates.

Furthermore, pragmatic studies can pose difficulties in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events tend to be self-reported, and are prone to errors, delays or coding differences. It is important to improve the accuracy and quality of the outcomes in these trials.

Results

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

Increased sensitivity to real-world issues which reduces study size and cost as well as allowing trial results to be faster translated into actual clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). However, pragmatic trials may have their disadvantages. For example, the right kind of heterogeneity can allow the trial to apply its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce 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 with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that confirm a physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that help inform the selection of appropriate treatments in real world clinical practice. The framework was composed of nine domains scored on a 1-5 scale with 1 being more informative and 5 was more practical. The domains covered recruitment and setting up, the delivery of intervention, flexible adhering to the program and primary analysis.

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

The difference in the primary analysis domains can be due to the way in which most pragmatic trials analyze data. Certain explanatory trials however, do not. The overall score for systematic reviews that were pragmatic was lower when the areas of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is crucial to keep in mind that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are a growing number of clinical trials which use the term "pragmatic" either in their abstracts or titles (as defined by MEDLINE, 프라그마틱 불법 but that is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms may signal an increased appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, however it's not clear if this is reflected in the content.

Conclusions

As the value of evidence from the real world becomes more popular and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world alternatives to new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular medical care. This method can help overcome the limitations of observational research like the biases that come with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and the coding differences in national registry.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to leverage existing data sources and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, they may have some limitations that limit their reliability and generalizability. Participation rates in some trials could be lower than expected because of the healthy-volunteering effect, financial incentives or competition from other research studies. Many pragmatic trials are also restricted by the necessity to recruit participants quickly. In addition, some pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't 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. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to determine the pragmatism of these trials. It includes domains such as eligibility criteria and flexibility in recruitment as well as 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 with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs that have specific criteria that are unlikely to be found in the clinical setting, and contain patients from a broad range of hospitals. These characteristics, according to the authors, can make pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday practice. However, they cannot guarantee that a trial will be free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in trials is not a definite characteristic A pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial may yield valid and useful results.