봉구티비

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

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It is a platform that collects and shares clean trial data and ratings using PRECIS-2, which allows for multiple and varied meta-epidemiological research studies to compare treatment effects estimates across trials with different levels of pragmatism as well as other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized as providing real-world evidence for clinical decision making. The term "pragmatic" however, is used inconsistently and its definition and measurement require further clarification. Pragmatic trials are designed to guide clinical practices and policy decisions, not to prove a physiological or clinical hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should try to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as possible, including in its recruitment of participants, setting up and design, the delivery and implementation of the intervention, determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials as described by Schwartz and Lellouch1 that are designed to confirm a hypothesis in a more thorough way.

Studies that are truly pragmatic must not attempt to blind participants or the clinicians in order to lead to distortions in estimates of treatment effects. The pragmatic trials also include patients from various healthcare settings to ensure that their results can be applied to the real world.

Finally the focus of pragmatic trials should be on outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 functional recovery. This is especially important when it comes to trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or have potential for dangerous adverse events. The CRASH trial29 compared a two-page report with an electronic monitoring system for patients in hospitals with chronic cardiac failure. The catheter trial28 however was based on symptomatic catheter-related urinary tract infection as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should also reduce the requirements for data collection and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 trial procedures to cut down on costs and time commitments. Additionally pragmatic trials should try to make their results as relevant to actual clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Despite these guidelines, a number of RCTs with features that defy the notion of pragmatism were incorrectly labeled pragmatic and published in journals of all types. This can lead to false claims of pragmatism, and the term's use should be standardized. The development of a PRECIS-2 tool that offers a standardized objective evaluation of pragmatic aspects is a good start.

Methods

In a practical trial the goal is to inform policy or clinical decisions by demonstrating how the intervention can be integrated into everyday routine care. This is distinct from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized settings. In this way, pragmatic trials may have lower internal validity than explanatory studies and be more susceptible to biases in their design analysis, conduct, and design. Despite their limitations, pragmatic research can be a valuable source of information to make decisions in the healthcare context.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the level of pragmatism that is present in an RCT by assessing it on 9 domains that range from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruit-ment organization, flexibility in delivery and follow-up domains received high scores, however, the primary outcome and the procedure for missing data were not at the pragmatic limit. This suggests that it is possible to design a trial with high-quality pragmatic features, without compromising the quality of its results.

It is hard to determine the level of pragmatism that is present in a study because pragmatism is not a have a binary characteristic. Certain aspects of a research study can be more pragmatic than others. Moreover, protocol or logistic changes during an experiment can alter its score on pragmatism. Koppenaal and colleagues found that 36% of the 89 pragmatic studies were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to the licensing. They also found that the majority were single-center. Thus, they are not as common and are only pragmatic when their sponsors are accepting of the lack of blinding in these trials.

Another common aspect of pragmatic trials is that researchers attempt to make their findings more relevant by analyzing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, which increases the likelihood of missing or misinterpreting differences in the primary outcome. In the case of the pragmatic studies that were included in this meta-analysis this was a major issue because the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for variations in the baseline covariates.

Additionally practical trials can present challenges in the collection and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported and are susceptible to errors, delays or coding variations. It is important to improve the quality and accuracy of outcomes in these trials.

Results

While the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that all clinical trials be 100% pragmatic there are benefits when incorporating pragmatic components into trials. These include:

Increasing sensitivity to real-world issues, reducing study size and cost, and enabling the trial results to be faster implemented into clinical practice (by including patients from routine care). But pragmatic trials can have their disadvantages. For instance, the appropriate type of heterogeneity can help a trial to generalise its results to many different patients and settings; however the wrong type of heterogeneity could reduce assay sensitivity and therefore decrease the ability of a trial to detect even minor effects of treatment.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials with a variety of definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 created a framework to discern between explanation-based studies that support the physiological hypothesis or clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that guide the selection of appropriate therapies in clinical practice. The framework consisted of nine domains assessed on a scale of 1-5 which indicated that 1 was more informative and 5 being more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery and follow-up, as well as flexible adherence and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 included similar domains and a scale of 1 to 5. Koppenaal and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 colleagues10 created an adaptation of the assessment, called the Pragmascope that was simpler to use for systematic reviews. They discovered that pragmatic systematic reviews had higher average scores in the majority of domains but lower scores in the primary analysis domain.

This difference in the analysis domain that is primary could be explained by the fact that most pragmatic trials analyze their data in an intention to treat manner, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score was lower for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 systematic reviews that were pragmatic when the domains on organisation, flexible delivery and follow-up were merged.

It is important to remember that a pragmatic study does not necessarily mean a low-quality study. In fact, there are an increasing number of clinical trials that employ the term "pragmatic" either in their abstract or title (as defined by MEDLINE however it is neither precise nor sensitive). These terms could indicate a greater appreciation of pragmatism in abstracts and titles, but it isn't clear whether this is reflected in content.

Conclusions

As the value of real-world evidence becomes increasingly commonplace the pragmatic trial has gained traction in research. They are randomized trials that compare real world care alternatives to experimental treatments in development. They include patient populations that are more similar to those who receive treatment in regular medical care. This method is able to overcome the limitations of observational research such as the biases that are associated with the use of volunteers as well as the insufficient availability and codes that vary in national registers.

Other advantages of pragmatic trials are the ability to use existing data sources, and a higher chance of detecting meaningful changes than traditional trials. However, pragmatic trials may still have limitations that undermine their credibility and generalizability. For instance the rates of participation in some trials might be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer influence and financial incentives or competition for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals in a timely manner also restricts the sample size and 프라그마틱 환수율 impact of many pragmatic trials. In addition certain pragmatic trials don't have controls to ensure that the observed differences aren't due to biases in the conduct of trials.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatic. They evaluated pragmatism using the PRECIS-2 tool that includes the eligibility criteria for 프라그마틱 체험 domains as well as recruitment, flexibility in adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They found that 14 of these trials scored as highly or pragmatic sensible (i.e., scoring 5 or more) in one or more of these domains, and that the majority were single-center.

Trials with a high pragmatism score tend to have higher eligibility criteria than traditional RCTs, which include very specific criteria that are not likely to be used in the clinical setting, and comprise patients from a wide variety of hospitals. The authors claim that these characteristics can help make pragmatic trials more meaningful and relevant to daily practice, but they do not necessarily guarantee that a trial using a pragmatic approach is free from bias. Furthermore, the pragmatism of trials is not a predetermined characteristic A pragmatic trial that does not possess all the characteristics of an explanatory trial can yield reliable and relevant results.