Literature DB >> 9496288

Are randomized controlled trials controlled? Patient preferences and unblind trials.

K McPherson1, A R Britton, J E Wennberg.   

Abstract

The most reliable information about treatment effects comes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the possibility of subtle interactions--for example, between treatment preferences and treatment effects--is generally subordinated in the quest for evidence about main treatment effects. If patient preferences can influence the effectiveness of treatments through poorly understood (psychological) pathways, then RCTs, particularly when unblinded, may wrongly attribute effects solely to a treatment's physiological/pharmacological properties. To interpret the RCT evidence base it is important to know whether any preference effects exist and, if so, by how much they affect outcome. Reliable measurement of these effects is difficult and will require new approaches to the conduct of trials. In view of the fanciful image with which such effects are portrayed and the uncertainties about their true nature and biological mechanisms, existing evidence is unlikely to provide sufficient justification for investment in trials. This is a Catch 22. Until an escape is found we might never know, even approximately, how much of modern medicine is attributable to psychological processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9496288      PMCID: PMC1296732          DOI: 10.1177/014107689709001205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

1.  Tribulations for clinical trials.

Authors:  I M Macintyre
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-05-11

2.  Persistently low natural killer cell activity, age, and environmental stress as predictors of infectious morbidity.

Authors:  S M Levy; R B Herberman; J Lee; T Whiteside; M Beadle; L Heiden; A Simons
Journal:  Nat Immun Cell Growth Regul       Date:  1991

3.  A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects.

Authors:  G Rücker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Diseases with passion.

Authors:  C A O'Boyle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-11-06       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Psychology and survival.

Authors:  D P Phillips; T E Ruth; L M Wagner
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-11-06       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Harnessing placebo effects in health care.

Authors:  D M Chaput de Saintonge; A Herxheimer
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-10-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The Cochrane Lecture. The best and the enemy of the good: randomised controlled trials, uncertainty, and assessing the role of patient choice in medical decision making.

Authors:  K McPherson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity?

Authors:  D J Torgerson; J Klaber-Moffett; I T Russell
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1996-10

Review 9.  Physiologic and psychobehavioral research in oncology.

Authors:  W H Redd; P M Silberfarb; B L Andersen; M A Andrykowski; D H Bovbjerg; T G Burish; P J Carpenter; C Cleeland; M Dolgin; S M Levy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Comparison of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis for fetal karyotyping at 10-13 weeks' gestation.

Authors:  K Nicolaides; M de L Brizot; F Patel; R Snijders
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-08-13       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  29 in total

Review 1.  Methods in health services research. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies.

Authors:  M McKee; A Britton; N Black; K McPherson; C Sanderson; C Bain
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-31

2.  Preferences and understanding their effects on health.

Authors:  K McPherson; A Britton
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

3.  Patients, preferences, and evidence.

Authors:  L Smeeth
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-05

Review 4.  Applying evidence to support ethical decisions: is the placebo really powerless?.

Authors:  Franz Porzsolt; Nicole Schlotz-Gorton; Nikola Biller-Andorno; Anke Thim; Karin Meissner; Irmgard Roeckl-Wiedmann; Barbara Herzberger; Renatus Ziegler; Wilhelm Gaus; Ernst Pöppe
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain.

Authors:  Elaine Thomas; Peter R Croft; Susan M Paterson; Krysia Dziedzic; Elaine M Hay
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Design and methods of "diaBEAT-it!": a hybrid preference/randomized control trial design using the RE-AIM framework.

Authors:  Fabio A Almeida; Kimberlee A Pardo; Richard W Seidel; Brenda M Davy; Wen You; Sarah S Wall; Erin Smith; Mark H Greenawald; Paul A Estabrooks
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Controversy in managing patients with prostate cancer. Banish dogma, get more data.

Authors:  A G Mulley; M J Barry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-27

Review 8.  Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  L Susan Wieland; Nicole Skoetz; Karen Pilkington; Ramaprabhu Vempati; Christopher R D'Adamo; Brian M Berman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-01-12

9.  "Bureaucracy & Beliefs": Assessing the Barriers to Accessing Opioid Substitution Therapy by People Who Inject Drugs in Ukraine.

Authors:  Martha J Bojko; Alyona Mazhnaya; Iuliia Makarenko; Ruthanne Marcus; Sergii Dvoriak; Zahedul Islam; Frederick L Altice
Journal:  Drugs (Abingdon Engl)       Date:  2015-03-16

10.  Patient preferences and expectations for care: determinants in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  Jon D Lurie; Sigurd H Berven; Jennifer Gibson-Chambers; Tor Tosteson; Anna Tosteson; Serena S Hu; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.