预测临床试验结果:五项实证研究的综合及其启示

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Perspectives in Biology and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/pbm.2023.0006
Jonathan Kimmelman, David R Mandel, Daniel M Benjamin
{"title":"预测临床试验结果:五项实证研究的综合及其启示","authors":"Jonathan Kimmelman, David R Mandel, Daniel M Benjamin","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2023.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Expectations about future events underlie practically every decision we make, including those in medical research. This paper reviews five studies undertaken to assess how well medical experts could predict the outcomes of clinical trials. It explains why expert trial forecasting was the focus of study and argues that forecasting skill affords insights into the quality of expert judgment and might be harnessed to improve decision-making in care, policy, and research. The paper also addresses potential criticisms of the research agenda and summarizes key findings from the five studies of trial forecasting. Together, the studies suggest that trials frequently deliver surprising results to expert communities and that individual experts are often uninformative when it comes to forecasting trial outcome and recruitment. However, the findings also suggest that expert forecasts often contain a \"signal\" about whether a trial will be positive, especially when forecasts are aggregated. The paper concludes with needs for further research and tentative policy recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting Clinical Trial Results: A Synthesis of Five Empirical Studies and Their Implications.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Kimmelman, David R Mandel, Daniel M Benjamin\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pbm.2023.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Expectations about future events underlie practically every decision we make, including those in medical research. This paper reviews five studies undertaken to assess how well medical experts could predict the outcomes of clinical trials. It explains why expert trial forecasting was the focus of study and argues that forecasting skill affords insights into the quality of expert judgment and might be harnessed to improve decision-making in care, policy, and research. The paper also addresses potential criticisms of the research agenda and summarizes key findings from the five studies of trial forecasting. Together, the studies suggest that trials frequently deliver surprising results to expert communities and that individual experts are often uninformative when it comes to forecasting trial outcome and recruitment. However, the findings also suggest that expert forecasts often contain a \\\"signal\\\" about whether a trial will be positive, especially when forecasts are aggregated. The paper concludes with needs for further research and tentative policy recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.0006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.0006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:对未来事件的期望几乎是我们做出的每一个决定的基础,包括医学研究中的决定。本文回顾了五项旨在评估医学专家预测临床试验结果的研究。它解释了为什么专家试验预测是研究的重点,并认为预测技能可以深入了解专家判断的质量,并可以用来改善护理、政策和研究的决策。本文还讨论了对研究议程的潜在批评,并总结了五项试验预测研究的关键发现。总之,这些研究表明,试验经常会给专家群体带来令人惊讶的结果,而且在预测试验结果和招募时,个别专家往往没有信息。然而,研究结果也表明,专家的预测往往包含一个关于试验是否积极的“信号”,尤其是当预测被汇总时。论文最后提出了进一步研究的必要性和初步的政策建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predicting Clinical Trial Results: A Synthesis of Five Empirical Studies and Their Implications.

Expectations about future events underlie practically every decision we make, including those in medical research. This paper reviews five studies undertaken to assess how well medical experts could predict the outcomes of clinical trials. It explains why expert trial forecasting was the focus of study and argues that forecasting skill affords insights into the quality of expert judgment and might be harnessed to improve decision-making in care, policy, and research. The paper also addresses potential criticisms of the research agenda and summarizes key findings from the five studies of trial forecasting. Together, the studies suggest that trials frequently deliver surprising results to expert communities and that individual experts are often uninformative when it comes to forecasting trial outcome and recruitment. However, the findings also suggest that expert forecasts often contain a "signal" about whether a trial will be positive, especially when forecasts are aggregated. The paper concludes with needs for further research and tentative policy recommendations.

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
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, an interdisciplinary scholarly journal whose readers include biologists, physicians, students, and scholars, publishes essays that place important biological or medical subjects in broader scientific, social, or humanistic contexts. These essays span a wide range of subjects, from biomedical topics such as neurobiology, genetics, and evolution, to topics in ethics, history, philosophy, and medical education and practice. The editors encourage an informal style that has literary merit and that preserves the warmth, excitement, and color of the biological and medical sciences.
期刊最新文献
Organismal Superposition and Death "Inherently Limited by Our Imaginations": Health Anxieties, Politics, and the History of the Climate Crisis Diagnosis: What Is the Structure of Its Reasoning? Valuing the Acute Subjective Experience Lived Religion in Religious Vaccine Exemptions
×
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