HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > Articles of Interest
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2008, 10:46 PM   #1
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Inaccuracies In Studies Of Cancer Treatment Revealed

Certain biases may compromise the findings of observational studies that compare the outcomes of different cancer treatments, a new study shows.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/104862.php
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2008, 10:47 PM   #2
gdpawel
Senior Member
 
gdpawel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,080
Treatment Bias Can Skew Results of Observational Studies?

The randomized, controlled clinical trial may likely remain the standard for evidence of clinical decision-making in cancer medicine, however, observational methods and systematic reviews are clearly useful.

Single arm clinical trials provide the tumor response (efficacy) evidence that is the basis for approving new cancer drugs. The vast majority of clinical trials performed are ones that test a new chemotherapeutic regimen against a placebo.

Even with the importance of clinical trials, it is crucial to work on reducing their inherent limitations, including uncertain generalizations, and to expand the use of the randomized clinical trial paradigm to areas beyond proving biological activity, like diagnostic testing.

Evidence based medicine, since the 1970's, depended upon the randomized, controlled trial. It rests upon the assumption that evidence should be determined and applied as a basis for medical decision-making.

Evidence is based upon quantities, similarities, populations, and averages, rather than qualities, idiosyncracies, individualization, and specifics.

It would be surprising if the most ardent supporter of evidence based medicine would ever advocate a randomized trial for an intervention in which an observational study showed remarkable efficacy in preventing a near death situation.

Many major medical advances have never been subjected to a prospective randomized study before being introduced into routine management because their beneficial effects have been obvious.

Recognizing the reliability of the evidence upon which clinical practice has increasingly come to depend, the time has come for physicians to reassess the value of direct observation, and to trust more readily both the empirical and intuitive discoveries they make each day in their personal experience, even if those discoveries are contradicted by the best available evidence.

There could be nothing more serious than the call for physicians to reconsider what it means to be authentic and true.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459
gdpawel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter