[Randomized clinical trials and real clinical practice]

One of the emerging problems in modern medicine is that part of its highly efficacious treatments do not show significant effectiveness in real world systems of care. Efficacy studies address the appropriate dosages, short term response and feasibility of treatments in carefully selected populations, but they do not necessarily provide information for decisions in clinical practice. This review aims to present strengths and limitations of different methodological types of trials and to offer an overview of how knowledge from clinical trials can be used for clinical practice. The important effect of funding source on the outcome of randomized controlled trials is discussed. Some key questions in the treatment assessment of depression, schizophrenia and different medical conditions are discussed, with a focus on the possibilities and restrictions of translating clinical trial results into real-world settings. Empirical evidence shows that although randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for proving efficacy of a therapeutic procedure they often suffer from funding source bias and from lack of generalizability. Effectiveness studies evaluate effects of treatments under conditions approximating usual care. Another key area that can be addressed by effectiveness studies is the impact on important health policy measures such as disability days, days of work or medical costs, etc. Conclusions show that the future assessment of treatment regimes for clinical utility requires less biased efficacy studies and more effectiveness studies addressing major issues from all relevant perspectives.