论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
Authors Barnish MS, Turner S
Received 22 March 2017
Accepted for publication 13 April 2017
Published 12 May 2017 Volume 2017:8 Pages 49—55
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S137701
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor David Price
Abstract: Evidence-based practice is an important component of health care service
delivery. However, there is a tendency, embodied in tools such as Grades of
Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, to focus principally
on the classification of study design, at the expense of a detailed assessment
of the strengths and limitations of the individual study. Randomized controlled
trials (RCTs), and in particular the classical “explanatory” RCT, have a
privileged place in the hierarchy of evidence. However, classical RCTs have
substantial limitations, most notably a lack of generalizability, which limit
their direct applicability to clinical practice implementation. Pragmatic and
observational studies can provide an invaluable perspective into real-world
applicability. This evidence could be used
more widely to complement ideal-condition results from classical RCTs,
following the principle of triangulation. In this review article, we discuss
several types of pragmatic and observational studies that could be used in this
capacity. We discuss their particular strengths and how their limitations may
be overcome and provide real-life examples by means of illustration.
Keywords: research methods,
randomized controlled trials, pragmatic trials, observational studies, disease
registries, evidence-based medicine
摘要视频链接:Pragmatic and observational
studies in health