• 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 supports research on pragmatic trials. It gathers and distributes clean trial data, ratings and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 evaluations using PRECIS-2. This allows for 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯 조작 (linked web page) a variety of meta-epidemiological analyses to compare treatment effect estimates across trials of different levels of pragmatism.

Background

Pragmatic studies are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. However, the usage of the term "pragmatic" is not uniform and its definition and evaluation requires 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 try to be as similar to the real-world clinical environment as possible, including in the selection of participants, setting and design as well as the implementation of the intervention, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료 슬롯 (Djaudits.com) and the determination and analysis of the outcomes, and primary analyses. This is a significant difference between explanation-based trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to prove a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

The most pragmatic trials should not be blind participants or the clinicians. This could lead to bias in the estimations of the effects of treatment. Practical trials also involve patients from various health care settings to ensure that their outcomes can be compared to the real world.

Additionally, clinical trials should be focused on outcomes that matter to patients, such as quality of life and functional recovery. This is particularly important in trials that require surgical procedures that are invasive or may have dangerous adverse consequences. The CRASH trial29 compared a 2-page report with an electronic monitoring system for hospitalized patients suffering from chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28, on the other hand was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infections as its primary outcome.

In addition to these aspects, pragmatic trials should minimize the requirements for data collection and trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally, pragmatic trials should seek to make their findings as applicable to clinical practice as possible by ensuring that their primary analysis follows the intention-to treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these requirements, a number of RCTs with features that challenge the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all kinds. This can lead to false claims of pragmaticity, and the usage of the term should be standardized. The creation of the PRECIS-2 tool, which provides a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features is a great first step.

Methods

In a pragmatic trial, the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by demonstrating how an intervention would be implemented into routine care. This differs from explanation trials that test hypotheses about the cause-effect relationship in idealised conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have lower internal validity than explanatory trials, and could be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can provide valuable data for making decisions within the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool scores an RCT on 9 domains, with scores ranging between 1 and 5 (very pragmatist). In this study, the recruit-ment organisation, flexibility: delivery, flexible adherence and follow-up domains scored high scores, however, the primary outcome and the method of missing data were below the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial using good pragmatic features without harming the quality of the results.

It is difficult to determine the degree of pragmatism that is present in a trial since pragmatism doesn't have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Furthermore, logistical or protocol modifications during the course of the trial may alter its score on pragmatism. In addition, 36% of the 89 pragmatic trials identified by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing, and the majority were single-center. Thus, 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 such trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that the researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the sample. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons with a lower statistical power, which increases the chance of not or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. This was a problem in the meta-analysis of pragmatic trials due to the fact that secondary outcomes were not corrected for differences in covariates at the time of baseline.

Furthermore practical trials can have challenges with respect to the gathering and interpretation of safety data. This is because adverse events are generally reported by the participants themselves and prone to delays in reporting, inaccuracies or coding errors. It is therefore important to improve the quality of outcome for these trials, and ideally by using national registries instead of relying on participants to report adverse events in the trial's own database.

Results

Although 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 trials are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may be a challenge. For instance, the right type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different settings and patients. However, the wrong type of heterogeneity can reduce assay sensitiveness and consequently reduce the power of a trial to detect minor treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to classify pragmatic trials with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 have developed a framework to distinguish between research studies that prove the clinical or physiological hypothesis, and pragmatic trials that inform the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 with 1 being more explanatory while 5 being more pragmatic. The domains included recruitment, setting up, delivery of intervention, flex compliance and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and an assessment scale ranging from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of the assessment, known as the Pragmascope, that was easier to use for 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 explained by the way that most pragmatic trials approach data. Some explanatory trials, however don't. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the domains of management, flexible delivery and following-up were combined.

It is important to note that a pragmatic trial does not necessarily mean a poor quality trial, and there is an increasing rate of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, however this is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. 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 evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace and pragmatic trials have gained momentum in research. They are clinical trials that are randomized that compare real-world care alternatives rather than experimental treatments under development. They have populations of patients that are more similar to the ones who are treated in routine medical care, they utilize comparisons that are commonplace in practice (e.g. existing drugs) and depend on the self-reporting of participants about outcomes. This approach could help overcome limitations of observational studies which include the limitations of relying on volunteers and the lack of availability and the variability of coding in national registries.

Pragmatic trials also have advantages, such as the ability to use existing data sources, and a greater likelihood of detecting meaningful differences from traditional trials. However, they may still have limitations that undermine their validity and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than anticipated due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The necessity to recruit people quickly limits the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition some pragmatic trials lack controls to ensure that the observed differences are not due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified 48 RCTs that self-labeled themselves as pragmatist and published until 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 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or higher) in at least one of these domains.

Studies with high pragmatism scores tend to have more criteria for eligibility than conventional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make the pragmatic trials more relevant and relevant to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a trial conducted in a pragmatic manner is free of bias. The pragmatism principle is not a fixed attribute and a test that does not have all the characteristics of an explicative study can still produce valid and useful outcomes.