Results Although highlighting a general lack of high- quality real-life effectiveness observational research on these clinical ly important topics , the analysis provided insights into how identified observational studies might inform asthma guidelines developers and clinicians .
Overall , RELEVANT appeared reliable and easy to use by expert review ers .
Conclusions Using such quality appraisal tools is m and atory to assess whether specific observational real-life effectiveness studies can be used to inform guideline development and /or decision-making in clinical practice
Abstract Introduction A Task Force was commissioned jointly by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI ) and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group ( REG ) to develop a  quality assessment tool for real-life observational research to identify high- quality real-life asthma studies that could be considered within future guideline development .
A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers
CMAJ • MAY 12 , 2009 • 180(10 ) © 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors E47 R and omized trials have traditionally been broadly categorized as either an effectiveness trial or an efficacy trial , although we prefer the terms “ pragmatic ” and “ explanatory . ” Schwartz and Lellouch described these 2 approaches toward clinical trials in 1967 . These authors coined the term “ pragmatic ” to describe trials that help users choose between options for care , and “ explanatory ” to describe trials that test causal research hypotheses ( i.e. , that a given intervention causes a particular benefit ) . We take the view that , in general , pragmatic trials are primarily design ed to determine the effects of an intervention under the usual conditions in which it will be applied , whereas explanatory trials are primarily design ed to determine the effects of an intervention under ideal circumstances . Thus , these terms refer to a trial ’s purpose and , in turn , structure . The degree to which this purpose is met depends on decisions about how the trial is design ed and , ultimately , conducted . Very few trials are purely pragmatic or explanatory . For example , in an otherwise explanatory trial , there may be some aspect of the intervention that is beyond the investigator ’s control . Similarly , the act of conducting an otherwise pragmatic trial may impose some control result ing in the setting being not quite usual . For example , the very act of collecting data required for a trial that would not otherwise be collected in usual practice could be a sufficient trigger to modify participant behaviour in unanticipated ways . Further , several aspects of a trial are relevant , relating to choices of trial participants , health care practitioners , interventions , adherence to protocol and analysis . Thus , we are left with a multidimensional continuum rather than a dichotomy , and a particular trial may display varying levels of pragmatism across these dimensions . In this article , we describe an effort to develop a tool to assess and display the position of any given trial within the pragmatic – explanatory continuum . The primary aim of this tool is to help trialists assess the degree to which design decisions align with the trial ’s stated purpose ( decision-making v. explanation ) . Our tool differs , therefore , from that of Gartlehner and associates in that it is intended to inform trial design rather than provide a method of classifying trials for the purpose of systematic review s. It can , however , also be used by research funders , ethics committees , trial registers and journal editors to make the same assessment , provided trialists declare their intended purpose and adequately report their design decisions . Hence , reporting of pragmatic trials is addressed elsewhere
Results Although highlighting a general lack of high- quality real-life effectiveness observational research on these clinical ly important topics , the analysis provided insights into how identified observational studies might inform asthma guidelines developers and clinicians .
Overall , RELEVANT appeared reliable and easy to use by expert review ers .
Conclusions Using such quality appraisal tools is m and atory to assess whether specific observational real-life effectiveness studies can be used to inform guideline development and /or decision-making in clinical practice
Abstract Introduction A Task Force was commissioned jointly by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI ) and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group ( REG ) to develop a  quality assessment tool for real-life observational research to identify high- quality real-life asthma studies that could be considered within future guideline development .