多则少:危重病研究中的边际效用

R. Leite
{"title":"多则少:危重病研究中的边际效用","authors":"R. Leite","doi":"10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2022.e4722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) in critical care mostly return negative results. The research community discusses strategies to improve RCTs design. METHODS: This paper presents a theoretical framework based on marginal utility to treat the problems of hypothesis generation and treatment effects valuation and presents recently published high-quality studies as instances where such a framework predicts irrelevant findings. RESULTS: Blindness to marginal utility, i.e., inobservance of the marginal utility of the proposed intervention, is common in critical care RCTs. CONCLUSION: Critical care RCTs are usually blind to marginal utility and are, therefore, prone to produce irrelevant findings.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More is exponentially less: marginal utility in critical care research\",\"authors\":\"R. Leite\",\"doi\":\"10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2022.e4722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) in critical care mostly return negative results. The research community discusses strategies to improve RCTs design. METHODS: This paper presents a theoretical framework based on marginal utility to treat the problems of hypothesis generation and treatment effects valuation and presents recently published high-quality studies as instances where such a framework predicts irrelevant findings. RESULTS: Blindness to marginal utility, i.e., inobservance of the marginal utility of the proposed intervention, is common in critical care RCTs. CONCLUSION: Critical care RCTs are usually blind to marginal utility and are, therefore, prone to produce irrelevant findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2022.e4722\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021xevidence.2022.e4722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:危重症的随机临床试验(RCT)大多返回阴性结果。研究界讨论改进随机对照试验设计的策略。方法:本文提出了一个基于边际效用的理论框架来处理假设生成和治疗效果评估的问题,并提出了最近发表的高质量研究作为实例,其中这种框架预测了不相关的发现。结果:对边际效用的盲目性,即不遵守拟议干预措施的边际效用,在危重病随机对照试验中很常见。结论:危重病随机对照试验通常不考虑边际效用,因此容易产生不相关的结果。
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
More is exponentially less: marginal utility in critical care research
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) in critical care mostly return negative results. The research community discusses strategies to improve RCTs design. METHODS: This paper presents a theoretical framework based on marginal utility to treat the problems of hypothesis generation and treatment effects valuation and presents recently published high-quality studies as instances where such a framework predicts irrelevant findings. RESULTS: Blindness to marginal utility, i.e., inobservance of the marginal utility of the proposed intervention, is common in critical care RCTs. CONCLUSION: Critical care RCTs are usually blind to marginal utility and are, therefore, prone to produce irrelevant findings.
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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