共 50 条
Pros and cons of pragmatic clinical trials
被引:0
|作者:
Lurie, Jon D.
[1
,2
,3
]
Morgan, Tamara S.
[2
,3
]
机构:
[1] Geisel Sch Med, Dept Med, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
[2] Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
[3] Geisel Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
关键词:
comparative effectiveness;
explanatory trial;
mechanistic trial;
practical trial;
pragmatic clinical trial;
randomized control trial;
trial design;
ATTITUDES;
D O I:
10.2217/CER.12.74
中图分类号:
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号:
摘要:
Traditional randomized controlled trials are the 'gold standard' for evaluating health interventions and are typically designed to maximize internal validity, often at the cost of limited generalizability. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials should be designed with a conscious effort to generate evidence with a greater external validity by making the research question as similar as possible to the questions faced by clinical decision-makers (i.e., patients and their families, physicians, policy makers and administrators) and then answer that question with rigor. Clarity and transparency about the specifics of the research question are the keys to designing, as well as interpreting, any clinical trial.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 58
页数:6
相关论文