Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine
The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a perso...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
A. Malmivaara [verfasserIn] M. Zampolini [verfasserIn] H. Stam [verfasserIn] C. Gutenbrunner [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine - Medical Journals Sweden, 2017, 54(2022) |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:54 ; year:2022 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ029456258 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ029456258 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230307135138.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RM1-950 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a A. Malmivaara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a rehabilitation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a randomized controlled trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a benchmarking controlled trial | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Therapeutics. Pharmacology | |
| 700 | 0 | |a M. Zampolini |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a H. Stam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a C. Gutenbrunner |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |d Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 |g 54(2022) |w (DE-627)333032365 |w (DE-600)2054931-3 |x 16512081 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:54 |g year:2022 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_101 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_138 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_250 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_281 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_647 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 54 |j 2022 | ||
| author_variant |
a m am m z mz h s hs c g cg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:16512081:2022----::rsncnornoiecnrletiladecmrigotoldrasneaiiainncdmceaeihnh |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2022 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
RM |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| allfields |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 A. Malmivaara verfasserin aut Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology M. Zampolini verfasserin aut H. Stam verfasserin aut C. Gutenbrunner verfasserin aut In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 54(2022) (DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 16512081 nnns volume:54 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 kostenfrei https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 54 2022 |
| spelling |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 A. Malmivaara verfasserin aut Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology M. Zampolini verfasserin aut H. Stam verfasserin aut C. Gutenbrunner verfasserin aut In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 54(2022) (DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 16512081 nnns volume:54 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 kostenfrei https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 54 2022 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 A. Malmivaara verfasserin aut Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology M. Zampolini verfasserin aut H. Stam verfasserin aut C. Gutenbrunner verfasserin aut In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 54(2022) (DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 16512081 nnns volume:54 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 kostenfrei https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 54 2022 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 A. Malmivaara verfasserin aut Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology M. Zampolini verfasserin aut H. Stam verfasserin aut C. Gutenbrunner verfasserin aut In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 54(2022) (DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 16512081 nnns volume:54 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 kostenfrei https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 54 2022 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 doi (DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RM1-950 A. Malmivaara verfasserin aut Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology M. Zampolini verfasserin aut H. Stam verfasserin aut C. Gutenbrunner verfasserin aut In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Medical Journals Sweden, 2017 54(2022) (DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 16512081 nnns volume:54 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 kostenfrei https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 54 2022 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 54(2022) volume:54 year:2022 |
| sourceStr |
In Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 54(2022) volume:54 year:2022 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial Therapeutics. Pharmacology |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
A. Malmivaara @@aut@@ M. Zampolini @@aut@@ H. Stam @@aut@@ C. Gutenbrunner @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
333032365 |
| id |
DOAJ029456258 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029456258</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307135138.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2340/jrm.v54.2511</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029456258</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RM1-950</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A. Malmivaara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">randomized controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">benchmarking controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapeutics. Pharmacology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M. Zampolini</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">H. Stam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C. Gutenbrunner</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">Medical Journals Sweden, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">54(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)333032365</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2054931-3</subfield><subfield code="x">16512081</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:54</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">54</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
A. Malmivaara |
| spellingShingle |
A. Malmivaara misc RM1-950 misc rehabilitation misc randomized controlled trial misc benchmarking controlled trial misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| authorStr |
A. Malmivaara |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)333032365 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
RM1-950 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
16512081 |
| topic_title |
RM1-950 Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine rehabilitation randomized controlled trial benchmarking controlled trial |
| topic |
misc RM1-950 misc rehabilitation misc randomized controlled trial misc benchmarking controlled trial misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc RM1-950 misc rehabilitation misc randomized controlled trial misc benchmarking controlled trial misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology |
| topic_browse |
misc RM1-950 misc rehabilitation misc randomized controlled trial misc benchmarking controlled trial misc Therapeutics. Pharmacology |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
333032365 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)333032365 (DE-600)2054931-3 |
| title |
Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ029456258 (DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 |
| title_full |
Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| author_sort |
A. Malmivaara |
| journal |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| journalStr |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2022 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
A. Malmivaara M. Zampolini H. Stam C. Gutenbrunner |
| container_volume |
54 |
| class |
RM1-950 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
A. Malmivaara |
| doi_str_mv |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
pros and cons of randomized controlled trials and benchmarking controlled trials in rehabilitation: an academic debate within the european academy of rehabilitation medicine |
| callnumber |
RM1-950 |
| title_auth |
Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| abstract |
The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. |
| abstractGer |
The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_647 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| title_short |
Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33 https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511 https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
M. Zampolini H. Stam C. Gutenbrunner |
| author2Str |
M. Zampolini H. Stam C. Gutenbrunner |
| ppnlink |
333032365 |
| callnumber-subject |
RM - Therapeutics and Pharmacology |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.2340/jrm.v54.2511 |
| callnumber-a |
RM1-950 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:58:52.246Z |
| _version_ |
1803600561174478848 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029456258</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307135138.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2340/jrm.v54.2511</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029456258</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJe497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RM1-950</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A. Malmivaara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pros and Cons of Randomized Controlled Trials and Benchmarking Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: An Academic Debate within the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate in Hannover, Germany, on 1st of September 2016 on the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies (benchmarking controlled trials; BCTs). The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. The academicians participated in the discussion. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. RCT or BCT. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that benchmarking refers to the methodological features of this study design: there must always be a comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies, in which one often needs multi-centred studies, such as in the assessment of the effectiveness of pathways when there is complexity of processes, health systems, organizational issues, structures and facilities; or where interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres; and when assessing the implementation of rehabilitation. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. Concern over the validity of BCTs was considered justified, as the validity criteria of BCTs cover all those related to RCTs and include the risk of selection bias between treatment arms. Appropriate description of the essentials of the study object, including adequate description of how the interventions were actualized in comparison to the study plan, are essential features for a valid and generalizable study for both RCTs and BCTs. BCTs are necessary to widen the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation. It was suggested that the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies could advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making. LAY ABSTRACT The European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (EARM) held a debate on the strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational effectiveness studies, also known as benchmarking controlled trials (BCTs), in rehabilitation. The main substance of the debate involved eight propositions and four proposed statements. The term “benchmarking” was questioned: does it mean market-oriented medicine? It was clarified that, as benchmarking refers to the features of the study design; there must be comparison between peers. It was agreed that BCTs might be better than RCTs for use in rehabilitation studies: one often needs multi-centred studies and assessment of the effectiveness of pathways; the rehabilitation processes are complex, and health systems and organizational issues are essential; and the essential interactions between therapists, doctors and patients differ between centres. Also, BCTs may deal with ethical issues more efficiently than RCTs. It was recommended that both RCTs and BCTs should be used in rehabilitation research. An essential feature of a valid and generalizable study (for both RCTs and BCTs) is appropriate description of the essentials of the study object. BCTs were considered necessary for widening the evidence-base of effectiveness in rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation field should support the concept of BCTs. It was proposed that education regarding BCTs is indicated, and stakeholders need to be convinced that BCTs are a valid alternative to RCTs. The EARM and other physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) bodies should advance the use of BCTs for clinical and health policy decision-making.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rehabilitation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">randomized controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">benchmarking controlled trial</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Therapeutics. Pharmacology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M. Zampolini</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">H. Stam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C. Gutenbrunner</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">Medical Journals Sweden, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">54(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)333032365</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2054931-3</subfield><subfield code="x">16512081</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:54</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.2511</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/e497179965944f5abe933f317c34bd33</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://medicaljournalssweden.se/jrm/article/view/2511</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1651-2081</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">54</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400983 |