Literature DB >> 6625387

An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials.

A R Feinstein.   

Abstract

Although highly successful in investigating remedial therapy, randomized clinical trials have sometimes created rather than clarified controversy when the treatments were given for the complex problems involved in studying either the primary prevention of disease or the secondary prevention of adverse progression for an established disease. Another source of difficulty has been the inevitable conflicts created by two legitimate and justifiable but opposing policies regarding the fastidious or pragmatic goals of the trials. These problems limit the scope of clinical questions that can be answered successfully by randomized trials, but other limitations are produced by problems in logistics or ethics. Randomized trials are unfeasible for studying multiple therapeutic candidates, minor changes in therapy, "instabilities" due to rapid technologic improvements in available treatment, long-term adverse effects, studies of etiologic or other suspected "noxious" agents, and the diverse clinical roles of diagnostic technology. Consequently, despite the magnificent scientific achievements of randomized clinical trials, the foundation for a basic science of patient care will also require major attention to the events and observations that occur in the ordinary circumstances of clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6625387     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-544

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  24 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new treatments: efficacy versus effectiveness studies?

Authors:  C Bombardier; A Maetzel
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 2.  Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies.

Authors:  R J Lilford; D A Braunholtz; R Greenhalgh; S J Edwards
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-01

Review 3.  Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Effectiveness versus efficacy studies.

Authors:  D A Revicki; L Frank
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Observational studies of antihypertensive medication use and compliance: is drug choice a factor in treatment adherence?

Authors:  K A Payne; S Esmonde-White
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.369

5.  Impact of the availability of a prior electrocardiogram on the triage of the patient with acute chest pain.

Authors:  T H Lee; E F Cook; M C Weisberg; G W Rouan; D A Brand; L Goldman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Methotrexate for primary biliary cirrhosis: who is to be trusted?

Authors:  Carlo Selmi; Mauro Podda
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  The literature of anaesthesia: what are we learning?

Authors:  P G Duncan; M M Cohen
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 5.063

8.  A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Mark Helfand; Sean Tunis; Evelyn P Whitlock; Stephen G Pauker; Anirban Basu; Jon Chilingerian; Frank E Harrell; David O Meltzer; Victor M Montori; Donald S Shepard; David M Kent
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.689

9.  An Algorithm for Creating Virtual Controls Using Integrated and Harmonized Longitudinal Data.

Authors:  William B Hansen; Shyh-Huei Chen; Santiago Saldana; Edward H Ip
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 2.651

10.  Physicians' preferences for active-controlled versus placebo-controlled trials of new antihypertensive drugs.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Peter A Ubel; Jesse A Berlin; Raymond R Townsend; David A Asch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.