随机行为在临床试验中的作用

Q Medicine
Koch, Abel
{"title":"随机行为在临床试验中的作用","authors":"Koch,&nbsp;Abel","doi":"10.1159/000057331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Place of Randomisation in Clinical TrialsRandomised clinical trials are nowadays the accepted gold standard for treatment comparisons. However, controversies still exist concerning the possibility to perform randomised trials or the adequacy and the ethical appropriateness of randomisation. Randomisation is sometimes credited with advantages it does not possess, and an extremely negative view or even a categorical rejection of non-randomised trials is found. This attitude may be comprehensible from a historical, pragmatic or educational viewpoint, but is not well-founded on epistemological grounds. This article argues that non-randomised clinical trials are needed, clarifies the role of randomisation in clinical trials and analyses the arguments raised against the validity of results from observational studies. It is shown that it has not been demonstrated up to now that well-designed and analysed observational studies would have yielded results that are distinct or even qualitatively different from results of similar randomised clinical trials. Although one is well advised to randomise whenever possible, there is still room for a considerable improvement of observational studies: Randomisation itself should be the only difference between observational studies and randomised clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"5 Suppl S1 ","pages":"121-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057331","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Die Rolle der Randomisation in klinischen Studien.\",\"authors\":\"Koch,&nbsp;Abel\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000057331\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Place of Randomisation in Clinical TrialsRandomised clinical trials are nowadays the accepted gold standard for treatment comparisons. However, controversies still exist concerning the possibility to perform randomised trials or the adequacy and the ethical appropriateness of randomisation. Randomisation is sometimes credited with advantages it does not possess, and an extremely negative view or even a categorical rejection of non-randomised trials is found. This attitude may be comprehensible from a historical, pragmatic or educational viewpoint, but is not well-founded on epistemological grounds. This article argues that non-randomised clinical trials are needed, clarifies the role of randomisation in clinical trials and analyses the arguments raised against the validity of results from observational studies. It is shown that it has not been demonstrated up to now that well-designed and analysed observational studies would have yielded results that are distinct or even qualitatively different from results of similar randomised clinical trials. Although one is well advised to randomise whenever possible, there is still room for a considerable improvement of observational studies: Randomisation itself should be the only difference between observational studies and randomised clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"volume\":\"5 Suppl S1 \",\"pages\":\"121-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057331\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forschende Komplementarmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057331\",\"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/10.1159/000057331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随机化在临床试验中的地位随机化临床试验是目前公认的治疗比较的黄金标准。然而,关于进行随机试验的可能性或随机化的充分性和伦理适宜性的争议仍然存在。随机化有时被认为具有它不具备的优势,并且发现对非随机试验的极端负面看法甚至断然拒绝。从历史、实用主义或教育的角度来看,这种态度可能是可以理解的,但在认识论的基础上却没有很好的基础。本文认为非随机临床试验是必要的,阐明了随机化在临床试验中的作用,并分析了反对观察性研究结果有效性的论点。研究表明,到目前为止,还没有证据表明,精心设计和分析的观察性研究能够产生与类似随机临床试验结果截然不同甚至在质量上不同的结果。尽管人们很好地建议尽可能随机化,但观察性研究仍有很大的改进空间:随机化本身应该是观察性研究和随机临床试验之间的唯一区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Die Rolle der Randomisation in klinischen Studien.

The Place of Randomisation in Clinical TrialsRandomised clinical trials are nowadays the accepted gold standard for treatment comparisons. However, controversies still exist concerning the possibility to perform randomised trials or the adequacy and the ethical appropriateness of randomisation. Randomisation is sometimes credited with advantages it does not possess, and an extremely negative view or even a categorical rejection of non-randomised trials is found. This attitude may be comprehensible from a historical, pragmatic or educational viewpoint, but is not well-founded on epistemological grounds. This article argues that non-randomised clinical trials are needed, clarifies the role of randomisation in clinical trials and analyses the arguments raised against the validity of results from observational studies. It is shown that it has not been demonstrated up to now that well-designed and analysed observational studies would have yielded results that are distinct or even qualitatively different from results of similar randomised clinical trials. Although one is well advised to randomise whenever possible, there is still room for a considerable improvement of observational studies: Randomisation itself should be the only difference between observational studies and randomised clinical trials.

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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信