Suppr超能文献

与稻草人论战:评韦斯顿、诺沃特尼和汤普森 - 布伦纳(2004年)

Jousting with straw men: comment on Westen, Novotny, and Thompson-Brenner (2004).

作者信息

Weisz John R, Weersing V Robin, Henggeler Scott W

机构信息

Judge Baker Children's Center, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02120-3225, USA.

出版信息

Psychol Bull. 2005 May;131(3):418-26, discussion 427-33. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.418.

Abstract

Empirically supported treatments (ESTs) do not cure every patient, and the randomized trial is not a flawless methodology. Upon these often-noted and widely accepted points, D. Westen, C. M. Novotny, and H. Thompson-Brenner (2004a; see record 2004-15935-005) built a critique of ESTs and EST research. However, important work developing effective, clinically relevant treatments for serious problems was omitted from the Westen et al. (2004a) review. Little documentation was offered for the purported "assumptions" of EST methodology that Westen et al. (2004a) criticized; and different review standards were applied to studies supporting versus those disagreeing with Westen et al.'s (2004a) views. Finally, the correlational research designs proposed as a remedy by Westen et al. (2004a) have far more serious weaknesses than randomized trials, thoughtfully applied to real-world clinical care.

摘要

实证支持的治疗方法(ESTs)并不能治愈每一位患者,而且随机试验也并非完美无缺的方法。基于这些广为人知且被广泛接受的观点,D. 韦斯顿、C. M. 诺沃特尼和H. 汤普森 - 布伦纳(2004a;见记录2004 - 15935 - 005)对ESTs及EST研究进行了批判。然而,韦斯顿等人(2004a)的综述遗漏了为严重问题开发有效且具有临床相关性治疗方法的重要工作。对于韦斯顿等人(2004a)所批评的EST方法学所谓的“假设”,几乎没有提供相关文献依据;而且对支持与反对韦斯顿等人(2004a)观点的研究采用了不同的综述标准。最后,韦斯顿等人(2004a)提议作为补救措施的相关研究设计,其弱点比精心应用于现实临床护理的随机试验要严重得多。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验