Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma

Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness

David Brendan Price, Alison Chisholm, Thys van der Molen, Nicolas Roche, Elizabeth V Hillyer, J. Bousquet

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)526-538
Number of pages13
JournalCurrent Allergy and Asthma Reports
Volume11
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint

Asthma
Pragmatic Clinical Trials
Observational Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • asthma
  • guidelines
  • observational studies
  • pragmatic trials
  • randomized controlled trials
  • real world

Cite this

Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma : Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness. / Price, David Brendan; Chisholm, Alison; van der Molen, Thys; Roche, Nicolas; Hillyer, Elizabeth V; Bousquet, J.

In: Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, Vol. 11, No. 6, 12.2011, p. 526-538.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Price, David Brendan ; Chisholm, Alison ; van der Molen, Thys ; Roche, Nicolas ; Hillyer, Elizabeth V ; Bousquet, J. / Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma : Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness. In: Current Allergy and Asthma Reports. 2011 ; Vol. 11, No. 6. pp. 526-538.
@article{8bd6e98a67a146f18f43c2d0ca50d374,
title = "Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma: Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness",
abstract = "Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.",
keywords = "asthma, guidelines, observational studies, pragmatic trials, randomized controlled trials, real world",
author = "Price, {David Brendan} and Alison Chisholm and {van der Molen}, Thys and Nicolas Roche and Hillyer, {Elizabeth V} and J. Bousquet",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s11882-011-0222-7",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "526--538",
journal = "Current Allergy and Asthma Reports",
issn = "1529-7322",
publisher = "Current Medicine Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma

T2 - Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness

AU - Price, David Brendan

AU - Chisholm, Alison

AU - van der Molen, Thys

AU - Roche, Nicolas

AU - Hillyer, Elizabeth V

AU - Bousquet, J.

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.

AB - Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.

KW - asthma

KW - guidelines

KW - observational studies

KW - pragmatic trials

KW - randomized controlled trials

KW - real world

U2 - 10.1007/s11882-011-0222-7

DO - 10.1007/s11882-011-0222-7

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 526

EP - 538

JO - Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

JF - Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

SN - 1529-7322

IS - 6

ER -