The practicalists' response

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 62, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 489-494

  Karanicolas, Paul J ^a,b   Montori, Victor M ^c   Devereaux, P J ^a   Schünemann, Holger ^a,d   Guyatt, Gordon H ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAROTID ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DECISION MAKING; ENDARTERECTOMY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION;

EID: 63449086214     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.013     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Oxman A., Lombard C., Treweek S., Gagnier J.J., Maclure M., and Zwarenstein M. Why we will remain pragmatists: four problems with the impractical mechanistic framework and a better solution. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009) 485-488 [in this issue]
2. Schwartz D., and Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 20 (1967) 637-648 [reprinted in this issue; J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:499-505].
3. Charlton B.G. Understanding randomized controlled trials: explanatory or pragmatic?. Fam Pract 11 (1994) 243-244
4. Flay B.R., Biglan A., Boruch R.F., Castro F.G., Gottfredson D., Kellam S., et al. Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci 6 (2005) 151-175
5. Gartlehner G., Hansen R.A., Nissman D., Lohr K.N., and Carey T.S. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 1040-1048
6. Halloran M.E., Struchiner C.J., and Longini Jr. I.M. Study designs for evaluating different efficacy and effectiveness aspects of vaccines. Am J Epidemiol 146 (1997) 789-803
7. MacRae K.D. Pragmatic versus explanatory trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5 (1989) 333-339
8. Fields W., Maslenikov V., Meyer J., Hass W.K., Remington RD., and MacDonald M. Joint study of extracranial arterial occlusion: progress report on prognosis following surgery or non-surgical treatment for transient ischaemic attacks and cervical carotid artery lesions. JAMA 211 (1970) 1993-2003
9. Shaw D., Venables G., Cartlidge N., Bates D., and Dickinson P.H. Carotid endarterectomy in patients with transient cerebral ischaemia. J Neurol Sci 64 (1984) 45-53
10. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet 351 (1998) 1379-1387
11. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trialists' Collaborative Group. The final results of the NASCET trial. N Engl J Med 339 (1998) 1415-1425
12. Mayberg M.R., Wilson E., Yatsy F., Weiss D.G., Messina L., Hershey L.A., et al. Carotid endarterectomy and prevention of cerebral ischaemia in symptomatic carotid stenosis. JAMA 266 (1991) 3289-3294
13. Rothwell P.M., Eliasziw M., Gutnikov S.A., Fox A.J., Taylor D.W., Mayberg M.R., et al. Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet 361 (2003) 107-116
14. Atkins D., Best D., Briss P.A., Eccles M., Falck-Ytter Y., Flottorp S., et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328 (2004) 1490-1494
15. Guyatt G.H., Gutterman D., Baumann M.H., Addrizzo-Harris D., Hylek E.M., Phillips B., et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines. Chest 129 (2006) 174-181
16. Stephenson B.J., Rowe B.H., Haynes R.B., Macharia W.M., and Leon G. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed?. JAMA 269 21 (1993) 2779-2781