Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution

David Price, Eric D Bateman, Alison Chisholm, Nikolaos G Papadopoulos, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich, Emilio Pizzichini, Elizabeth V Hillyer, A Sonia Buist

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Observational studies and pragmatic trials can complement classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by providing data more relevant to the circumstances under which medicine is routinely practiced, thereby providing practical guidance for clinicians. The bearing of RCT findings on day-to-day practice can be weighted and the data more meaningfully interpreted by practicing clinicians if evidence is integrated from a variety of different study designs and methodologies. The advent of observational studies and pragmatic trials, often referred to as "real-life studies," has met with a degree of cynicism, but their role and value is gaining widespread recognition and support among clinicians. This article discusses where observational studies and pragmatic trials have utility, namely: in addressing clinical questions that are unanswered and/or unanswerable by RCTs; in testing new hypotheses and possible license extensions; and in helping to differentiate between available therapies for a given indication. Moreover, it seeks to highlight how the different approaches fit within a conceptual framework of evidence relevant to clinical practice, a step-change in the traditional view of medical evidence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)S92-98
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of the American Thoracic Society
Volume11
Issue numberSuppl 2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Pragmatic Clinical Trials
Observational Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Licensure
Medicine
Therapeutics

Cite this

Price, D., Bateman, E. D., Chisholm, A., Papadopoulos, N. G., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., Pizzichini, E., ... Buist, A. S. (2014). Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 11 (Suppl 2), S92-98. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM

Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution. / Price, David; Bateman, Eric D; Chisholm, Alison; Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G; Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia; Pizzichini, Emilio; Hillyer, Elizabeth V; Buist, A Sonia.

In: Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Vol. 11 , No. Suppl 2, 02.2014, p. S92-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Price, D, Bateman, ED, Chisholm, A, Papadopoulos, NG, Bosnic-Anticevich, S, Pizzichini, E, Hillyer, EV & Buist, AS 2014, 'Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution', Annals of the American Thoracic Society, vol. 11 , no. Suppl 2, pp. S92-98. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM
Price D, Bateman ED, Chisholm A, Papadopoulos NG, Bosnic-Anticevich S, Pizzichini E et al. Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2014 Feb;11 (Suppl 2):S92-98. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM
Price, David ; Bateman, Eric D ; Chisholm, Alison ; Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G ; Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia ; Pizzichini, Emilio ; Hillyer, Elizabeth V ; Buist, A Sonia. / Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution. In: Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2014 ; Vol. 11 , No. Suppl 2. pp. S92-98.
@article{21651de19c8d4cdb80be4a60e4d4fbba,
title = "Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution",
abstract = "Observational studies and pragmatic trials can complement classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by providing data more relevant to the circumstances under which medicine is routinely practiced, thereby providing practical guidance for clinicians. The bearing of RCT findings on day-to-day practice can be weighted and the data more meaningfully interpreted by practicing clinicians if evidence is integrated from a variety of different study designs and methodologies. The advent of observational studies and pragmatic trials, often referred to as {"}real-life studies,{"} has met with a degree of cynicism, but their role and value is gaining widespread recognition and support among clinicians. This article discusses where observational studies and pragmatic trials have utility, namely: in addressing clinical questions that are unanswered and/or unanswerable by RCTs; in testing new hypotheses and possible license extensions; and in helping to differentiate between available therapies for a given indication. Moreover, it seeks to highlight how the different approaches fit within a conceptual framework of evidence relevant to clinical practice, a step-change in the traditional view of medical evidence.",
author = "David Price and Bateman, {Eric D} and Alison Chisholm and Papadopoulos, {Nikolaos G} and Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich and Emilio Pizzichini and Hillyer, {Elizabeth V} and Buist, {A Sonia}",
note = "Supported by the Respiratory Effectiveness Group, which paid the publication costs.",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "S92--98",
journal = "Annals of the American Thoracic Society",
issn = "2325-6621",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "Suppl 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution

AU - Price, David

AU - Bateman, Eric D

AU - Chisholm, Alison

AU - Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G

AU - Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia

AU - Pizzichini, Emilio

AU - Hillyer, Elizabeth V

AU - Buist, A Sonia

N1 - Supported by the Respiratory Effectiveness Group, which paid the publication costs.

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Observational studies and pragmatic trials can complement classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by providing data more relevant to the circumstances under which medicine is routinely practiced, thereby providing practical guidance for clinicians. The bearing of RCT findings on day-to-day practice can be weighted and the data more meaningfully interpreted by practicing clinicians if evidence is integrated from a variety of different study designs and methodologies. The advent of observational studies and pragmatic trials, often referred to as "real-life studies," has met with a degree of cynicism, but their role and value is gaining widespread recognition and support among clinicians. This article discusses where observational studies and pragmatic trials have utility, namely: in addressing clinical questions that are unanswered and/or unanswerable by RCTs; in testing new hypotheses and possible license extensions; and in helping to differentiate between available therapies for a given indication. Moreover, it seeks to highlight how the different approaches fit within a conceptual framework of evidence relevant to clinical practice, a step-change in the traditional view of medical evidence.

AB - Observational studies and pragmatic trials can complement classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by providing data more relevant to the circumstances under which medicine is routinely practiced, thereby providing practical guidance for clinicians. The bearing of RCT findings on day-to-day practice can be weighted and the data more meaningfully interpreted by practicing clinicians if evidence is integrated from a variety of different study designs and methodologies. The advent of observational studies and pragmatic trials, often referred to as "real-life studies," has met with a degree of cynicism, but their role and value is gaining widespread recognition and support among clinicians. This article discusses where observational studies and pragmatic trials have utility, namely: in addressing clinical questions that are unanswered and/or unanswerable by RCTs; in testing new hypotheses and possible license extensions; and in helping to differentiate between available therapies for a given indication. Moreover, it seeks to highlight how the different approaches fit within a conceptual framework of evidence relevant to clinical practice, a step-change in the traditional view of medical evidence.

U2 - 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM

DO - 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM

M3 - Article

C2 - 24559027

VL - 11

SP - S92-98

JO - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

JF - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

SN - 2325-6621

IS - Suppl 2

ER -