 |
|
Reporting the Results of Randomized Clinical Trials
A Priority of Archives of Ophthalmology
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1038-1039.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Clinical trials have served as the foundation of much of the knowledge we have gained in the last 50 years with regard to the efficacy of treatments of various medical conditions. In very few conditions is the natural history of the disease so well defined, and the outcome of intervention so evident, that the benefits as well as the adverse effects of a treatment can be determined without a control group and randomization of treatment assignments. When a treatment dramatically alters the natural history of a disease, such as treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia with penicillin, a randomized trial is not needed to judge efficacy; however, such examples are few and far between. Most treatments administered in clinical medicine, even those that have been well evaluated in clinical trials, produce modest or small beneficial effects.
With retrospective or uncontrolled studies, there is often concern that the observed treatment effect could be . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Fish Stories and Clinical Trials
William C. Frayer and William J. Frayer
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(7):1049-1051.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A 5-Year, Multicenter, Open-Label, Safety Study of Adjunctive Latanoprost Therapy for Glaucoma
Albert Alm, John Schoenfelder, and Jacquie McDermott
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(7):957-965.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Contradictions in the amblyopia treatment studies.
Lempert
Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:285-285.
FULL TEXT
|
