{"title":"内窥镜作为消化性疾病对照临床试验的最终仲裁者","authors":"R.F. Meier, R. Sieber, P. Bauerfeind, A.L. Blum","doi":"10.1016/S0300-5089(21)00693-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Endoscopy should not be the sole final arbiter in controlled clinical trials of peptic disorders. Data on the response of symptoms to treatment and the occurrence of side-effects may be not as 'hard’ as endoscopically assessed 'healing’ and 'relapse’, but may be clinically more meaningful. Furthermore, in most recent trials, 'healing’ and 'relapse’ were poorly defined; important information on residual mucosal lesions after healing was often neglected.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":75717,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in gastroenterology","volume":"15 2","pages":"Pages 377-391"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopy as Final Arbiter in Controlled Clinical Trials in Peptic Disorders\",\"authors\":\"R.F. Meier, R. Sieber, P. Bauerfeind, A.L. Blum\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0300-5089(21)00693-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Endoscopy should not be the sole final arbiter in controlled clinical trials of peptic disorders. Data on the response of symptoms to treatment and the occurrence of side-effects may be not as 'hard’ as endoscopically assessed 'healing’ and 'relapse’, but may be clinically more meaningful. Furthermore, in most recent trials, 'healing’ and 'relapse’ were poorly defined; important information on residual mucosal lesions after healing was often neglected.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 377-391\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1986-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300508921006933\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300508921006933","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Endoscopy as Final Arbiter in Controlled Clinical Trials in Peptic Disorders
Endoscopy should not be the sole final arbiter in controlled clinical trials of peptic disorders. Data on the response of symptoms to treatment and the occurrence of side-effects may be not as 'hard’ as endoscopically assessed 'healing’ and 'relapse’, but may be clinically more meaningful. Furthermore, in most recent trials, 'healing’ and 'relapse’ were poorly defined; important information on residual mucosal lesions after healing was often neglected.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
