Makhinson Michael
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Science, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2012 Jan;200(1):76-82. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31823e62cd.
The evolution of medical research has vaulted randomized clinical trials to the status of current gold standard of clinical evidence. In parallel, the evolution of the science of decision-making has revealed human beings' universal tendency to make biased judgments and systematic errors in their evaluation of information and choices. As a result of numerous psychological biases, randomized clinical trials are more prone to error, misinterpretation, and faulty judgment than is often acknowledged. Interdisciplinary fields of experimental psychology, economics, and social science are drawn upon to examine psychological biases in the interpretation of clinical evidence. A number of these are postulated to be important, both for the investigators generating clinical evidence and for the clinical observers interpreting clinical trials. This study focuses on the field of psychiatry and on the potentially significant implications of evidence biases for psychiatric practice and clinical understanding.
医学研究的发展已将随机临床试验提升至当前临床证据金标准的地位。与此同时,决策科学的发展揭示了人类在评估信息和选择时普遍存在做出有偏差判断和系统性错误的倾向。由于众多心理偏差,随机临床试验比通常所承认的更容易出现错误、误解和错误判断。实验心理学、经济学和社会科学等跨学科领域被用于研究临床证据解读中的心理偏差。其中一些偏差被认为对生成临床证据的研究者以及解读临床试验的临床观察者都很重要。本研究聚焦于精神病学领域,以及证据偏差对精神病学实践和临床理解的潜在重大影响。