Clinical epidemiology is defined as a method for investigating the distribution and determinants of diseases and for applying this knowledge in their prevention, and simply means application of epidemiological methods for medical research. In evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard for assessing efficacy and safety of the intervention, while it is commonly impractical because of many limitations, such as ethical/legal problems and weak external-validity. High internal-validity of RCT permits to assess the direct efficacy of intervention without interference with bias and confounder; however, it has less generalizability or applicability to the real-life practice. Evidence-based practical guidelines are developed for patient management and decision making in real-life practice; paradoxically, the evidence of the guidelines does not come from real life, but from strict trial life. To overcome these limitations, pragmatic clinical trials for assessing the effectiveness of intervention in real-life practice or high-quality observational studies would be the best alternatives or could add more strong evidence. This article provides an overview of clinicoepidemiological research designs in the field of childhood allergic diseases and their strength/weakness.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Child ; Decision Making ; Epidemiologic Methods ; Epidemiology ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Pragmatic Clinical Trial ; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic ; Research Design*

pragmatic clinical trial. At the final phase of the trial, we invited 698 potentially-involved care providers in the survey regarding their willingness to use 2-mSv CT. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with willingness. Nine months after the completion of the trial patient recruitment, we surveyed whether the hospitals were using 2-mSv CT in usual practice.RESULTS: The analyses included responses from 579 participants (203 attendings and 376 trainees; 221 radiologists, 196 emergency physicians, and 162 surgeons). Regarding the willingness to immediately change their standard practice to 2-mSv CT, 158 (27.3%), 375 (64.8%), and 46 (7.9%) participants responded as “yes” (consistently), “partly” (selectively), and “no”, respectively. Willingness varied considerably across the hospitals, but only slightly across the participants' departments or job titles. Willingness was significantly associated with attendings (p = 0.004), intention to maintain the dedicated appendiceal CT protocol (p < 0.001), belief in compelling evidence on the carcinogenic risk of conventional-dose CT radiation (p = 0.028), and hospitals having more than 1000 beds (p = 0.031). Fourteen of the 20 hospitals kept using 2-mSv appendiceal CT in usual practice after the trial.CONCLUSION: Despite the extensive efforts over the years of this clinical trial, many care providers were willing to use 2-mSv CT selectively or not willing to use.]]>
Adolescent ; Appendicitis ; Emergencies ; Humans ; Intention ; Logistic Models ; Patient Selection ; Pragmatic Clinical Trial ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation Dosage ; Surgeons ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Young Adult