Recommendations regarding the different approaches (RCTs or BCTs) should be provided by the scientific rehabilitation societies. the acceptability of interventions, more easily than RCTs. In addition, BCTs may deal with ethical issues, e.g. 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. 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. There was agreement that a study question should be the starting point of an effectiveness study, and not the study method, i.e. Eight propositions and proposed statements formed the substance of the debate. The academicians participated in the discussion. The debate involved a chairperson, a person presenting the substance of the debate, an opponent, and a rapporteur. 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).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |