{"title":"在慢性稳定疾病中建立疗效:“N = 1研究”设计或病例系列有用吗?","authors":"Ernst","doi":"10.1159/000057333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this overview is to discuss the usefulness of two research tools often advocated in complementary medicine: the n = 1 study and case series. These methodologies are defined and their advantages and disadvantages are outlined. It is concluded that both designs have advantages and disadvantages. For testing the efficacy/effectiveness of complementary therapies neither design will lead to conclusive, generalizable results. Yet both methodologies can be valuable adjuncts to other types of investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"5 Suppl S1 ","pages":"128-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057333","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing Efficacy in Chronic Stable Conditions: Are 'N = 1 Study' Designs or Case Series Useful?\",\"authors\":\"Ernst\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000057333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this overview is to discuss the usefulness of two research tools often advocated in complementary medicine: the n = 1 study and case series. These methodologies are defined and their advantages and disadvantages are outlined. It is concluded that both designs have advantages and disadvantages. For testing the efficacy/effectiveness of complementary therapies neither design will lead to conclusive, generalizable results. Yet both methodologies can be valuable adjuncts to other types of investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"volume\":\"5 Suppl S1 \",\"pages\":\"128-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057333\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057333\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Establishing Efficacy in Chronic Stable Conditions: Are 'N = 1 Study' Designs or Case Series Useful?
The aim of this overview is to discuss the usefulness of two research tools often advocated in complementary medicine: the n = 1 study and case series. These methodologies are defined and their advantages and disadvantages are outlined. It is concluded that both designs have advantages and disadvantages. For testing the efficacy/effectiveness of complementary therapies neither design will lead to conclusive, generalizable results. Yet both methodologies can be valuable adjuncts to other types of investigation.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
