This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George H. Bresnick, MD, MPA
Rochester, NY

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(4):402.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In "Cost Containment: Death Knell or New Opportunity for Randomized Trials?" in the February 1994 issue of the ARCHIVES Hillis¹ eloquently and appropriately defends the scientific validity and medical value of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) research: studies conducted under strictly controlled conditions to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Her Editorial and the accompanying "Resolution From the National Advisory Eye Council," while timely, are in danger of creating a polemic between those who support and conduct classic RCTs and those involved in observational studies and so-called outcomes research (OR). Randomized controlled trials and OR are complementary to, not substitutes for, one another.

If testing the efficacy of a treatment under strictly controlled conditions were the only consideration, then RCTs would suffice. However, the "translation" of RCT results into medically effective treatments in ordinary practice is the ultimate goal. Efforts in this respect have been directed to educating patients and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?