双盲安慰剂对照试验的狂热。

S J Ellis, R F Adams
{"title":"双盲安慰剂对照试验的狂热。","authors":"S J Ellis,&nbsp;R F Adams","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is held as the gold standard in medical knowledge, but this tool of investigation has its weaknesses. These include ethical limitations on the types of comparison that can be undertaken, the central conflict between best practice for an individual and trial protocols, problems of applicability to the general population and applicability of work done on one population to another, type II errors, publication bias, misuse and limitation of statistics, fraud, maintenance of blinding, asking the wrong question, and a simplistic, reductionist view of clinical management. The concentration on the randomised, controlled trial devalues information from other sources, such as natural history studies, clinical experience and case reports. The randomised, controlled trial is an important source of information and as physicians we should welcome more well-crafted trials, but they are not the only source of information.</p>","PeriodicalId":22312,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of clinical practice","volume":"51 1","pages":"36-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cult of the double-blind placebo-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"S J Ellis,&nbsp;R F Adams\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is held as the gold standard in medical knowledge, but this tool of investigation has its weaknesses. These include ethical limitations on the types of comparison that can be undertaken, the central conflict between best practice for an individual and trial protocols, problems of applicability to the general population and applicability of work done on one population to another, type II errors, publication bias, misuse and limitation of statistics, fraud, maintenance of blinding, asking the wrong question, and a simplistic, reductionist view of clinical management. The concentration on the randomised, controlled trial devalues information from other sources, such as natural history studies, clinical experience and case reports. The randomised, controlled trial is an important source of information and as physicians we should welcome more well-crafted trials, but they are not the only source of information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"36-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

双盲、安慰剂对照试验被认为是医学知识的黄金标准,但这种调查工具有其弱点。这些问题包括对可进行的比较类型的伦理限制,个人最佳实践与试验方案之间的核心冲突,对一般人群的适用性问题以及对一个人群的工作对另一个人群的适用性问题,II型错误,发表偏倚,统计数据的滥用和限制,欺诈,维持盲法,提出错误的问题,以及对临床管理的简单化,简化主义观点。对随机对照试验的关注贬低了其他来源的信息,如自然史研究、临床经验和病例报告。随机对照试验是重要的信息来源,作为医生,我们应该欢迎更多精心设计的试验,但它们并不是唯一的信息来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The cult of the double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is held as the gold standard in medical knowledge, but this tool of investigation has its weaknesses. These include ethical limitations on the types of comparison that can be undertaken, the central conflict between best practice for an individual and trial protocols, problems of applicability to the general population and applicability of work done on one population to another, type II errors, publication bias, misuse and limitation of statistics, fraud, maintenance of blinding, asking the wrong question, and a simplistic, reductionist view of clinical management. The concentration on the randomised, controlled trial devalues information from other sources, such as natural history studies, clinical experience and case reports. The randomised, controlled trial is an important source of information and as physicians we should welcome more well-crafted trials, but they are not the only source of information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CANCER PREVENTION. COLIC. Diabetes mellitus. Renal artery stenosis. Tirofiban--spinning the data from fact to hype.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1