Literature DB >> 24553853

Why and for what are clinical trials the gold standard?

Sven Ove Hansson1.   

Abstract

The epistemological basis of clinical trials and evidence-based medicine is investigated. Clinical trials are directly action-guiding experiments on treatment effects. This is the reason why well-performed clinical trials take precedence over all other types of studies as far as treatment effects are concerned. The efficiency of public health interventions can be studied with directly action-guiding experiments that have the same strong epistemic justification as clinical trials. However, in order to assess the causality of diseases, information from several types of studies will have to be combined. Here, no single type of studies has priority over all the others. Therefore, evidence hierarchies are less helpful in studies of causality than they are in investigations of the effects of treatments or interventions.

Keywords:  Action-guiding experiment; clinical trial; epistemic experiment; evidence-based medicine; public health

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24553853     DOI: 10.1177/1403494813516712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Public Health        ISSN: 1403-4948            Impact factor:   3.021


  7 in total

1.  Negative mechanistic reasoning in medical intervention assessment.

Authors:  Jesper Jerkert
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2015-12

2.  Causal assessment of pharmaceutical treatments: why standards of evidence should not be the same for benefits and harms?

Authors:  Barbara Osimani; Fiorenzo Mignini
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  What's in a gold standard? In defence of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Marius Backmann
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2017-12

4.  Non-oncology clinical trial engagement in a nationally representative sample: Identification of motivators and barriers.

Authors:  Zachary Feuer; Richard S Matulewicz; Ramsankar Basak; Donna A Culton; Kimberly Weaver; Kristalyn Gallagher; Tracy L Rose; Matthew Milowsky; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 2.261

5.  Against 'instantaneous' expertise.

Authors:  Alexander Mebius
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 2.200

6.  Improving treatment of depression in primary health care: a case study of obstacles to perform a clinical trial designed to implement practice guidelines.

Authors:  Linda Richter-Sundberg; Monica Elisabeth Nyström; Ingvar Krakau; Christer Sandahl
Journal:  Prim Health Care Res Dev       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 1.458

7.  A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Authors:  Maeve Coyle; Katie Gillies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.