Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness英文电子书.pdf

Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2011) 11:526–538 DOI 10.1007/s11882-011-0222-7 ASTHMA (WILLIAM J. CALHOUN AND JEAN BOUSQUET, SECTION EDITORS) Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma: Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness David Price Alison Chisholm Thys van der Molen Nicolas Roche Elizabeth V. Hillyer Jean Bousquet Published online: 17 September 2011 # The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at S Abstract Classical randomized controlled trials are the which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials gold standard in medical evidence because of their high are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively approaches is preferable and necessary. designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in Keywords Asthma . Guidelines . Observational studies . nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world Pragmatic trials . Randomized controlled trials . Real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in Clinical Trial Acronyms hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in ELEVATE A Pragmatic Single-Blind RCT and Health Economic Evaluation of Leukotriene Receptor D. Price (*) :T. van der Molen