{"title":"重新审视随机对照试验：重新评估其作为循证治疗黄金标准的作用。","authors":"Angela J Zaur","doi":"10.1521/pdps.2025.53.2.157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the gold standard for determining whether a treatment is empirically supported. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in criticism of RCTs for psychotherapeutic research due to their high rate of biases, lack of replicability, and discrepancies in real-world applications. The author discusses the weaknesses of RCTs and the need to refine how we view psychotherapeutic treatments as efficacious.</p>","PeriodicalId":38518,"journal":{"name":"Psychodynamic Psychiatry","volume":"53 2","pages":"157-161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Randomized Controlled Trials: Reassessing Their Role as the Gold Standard for Evidence-Based Treatments.\",\"authors\":\"Angela J Zaur\",\"doi\":\"10.1521/pdps.2025.53.2.157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the gold standard for determining whether a treatment is empirically supported. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in criticism of RCTs for psychotherapeutic research due to their high rate of biases, lack of replicability, and discrepancies in real-world applications. The author discusses the weaknesses of RCTs and the need to refine how we view psychotherapeutic treatments as efficacious.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychodynamic Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"53 2\",\"pages\":\"157-161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychodynamic Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2025.53.2.157\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychodynamic Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2025.53.2.157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
Revisiting Randomized Controlled Trials: Reassessing Their Role as the Gold Standard for Evidence-Based Treatments.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the gold standard for determining whether a treatment is empirically supported. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in criticism of RCTs for psychotherapeutic research due to their high rate of biases, lack of replicability, and discrepancies in real-world applications. The author discusses the weaknesses of RCTs and the need to refine how we view psychotherapeutic treatments as efficacious.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
