Weisz John R, Weersing V Robin, Henggeler Scott W
Judge Baker Children's Center, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02120-3225, USA.
Psychol Bull. 2005 May;131(3):418-26, discussion 427-33. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.418.
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.
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。