Department of Philosophy the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2022 Oct;28(5):745-751. doi: 10.1111/jep.13748. Epub 2022 Aug 15.
Exercise interventions and policies are widely prescribed in both sport and healthcare. Research investigating exercise interventions and policies is generally conducted using an Evidence-Based framework, placing an emphasis on evidence gathered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
To explore the idea that, in addition to the assessment of evidence from RCTs when investigating exercise interventions, mechanistic studies ought to also be assessed and considered.
This article assesses the rationale supporting the use of RCTs as evidence for exercise interventions, and the use of evidence of mechanisms in establishing efficacy, determining external validity, and tailoring interventions.
The article argues that evidence from mechanistic studies ought to be considered alongside evidence from RCTs because: as RCTs investigating exercise interventions tend to be of low quality, mechanistic studies ought to be used to reinforce the evidence base; further, evidence from mechanistic studies is highly useful for both questions of extrapolation and implementation. This article argues for this on theoretical grounds, and also draws on a number of case studies.
运动和医疗保健领域广泛推荐运动干预措施和政策。研究运动干预措施和政策的一般采用循证框架，强调从随机对照试验（RCT）中收集的证据。
探讨除了在研究运动干预措施时评估 RCT 证据外，还应评估和考虑机制研究。
本文评估了将 RCT 作为运动干预证据的依据，以及使用机制证据来确定疗效、确定外部有效性和调整干预措施。
本文认为，应该将机制研究的证据与 RCT 的证据一并考虑，因为：由于研究运动干预措施的 RCT 往往质量较低，因此应该使用机制研究来加强证据基础；此外，机制研究的证据对于外推和实施问题都非常有用。本文从理论角度对此进行了论证，并借鉴了一些案例研究。
