Blackstone E H
Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
J Heart Valve Dis. 1995 Jul;4(4):326-36.
Serious studies of the results of clinical interventions, such as those of heart valve surgery, employ mathematical and statistical methods and modes of expression and presentation that are complex. I, along with my colleagues, am guilty of developing some of these methods. However, in this address I trace the more than three centuries of development that has led to present methodology, demonstrating that each increase in complexity was born of the necessity to reflect clinical reality. These methods include survival analysis, and particularly its central theme, the hazard function, from its invention by a storekeeper during the Plague to the multiple phase hazard method developed by us. Importantly, contemporary methods permit patient-specific predictions that are useful for recommending therapy and for informed patient consent. In contemporary medicine, molecular-level research would seem to hold the promise of making observational clinical studies obsolete; yet a flurry of so-called Outcomes Research has emerged. However, the danger now is that new forces and philosophies are driving that interest that are not as strongly tuned to the necessities of improving individual patient care and longitudinal outcome as has been the case in the past.
对临床干预结果的严谨研究,比如心脏瓣膜手术的研究,采用的数学和统计方法以及表达和呈现方式都很复杂。我和我的同事们就参与了其中一些方法的开发。然而,在本次演讲中,我追溯了导致当前方法的三个多世纪的发展历程,表明每一次复杂性的增加都是为了反映临床现实的必要性所催生的。这些方法包括生存分析,尤其是其核心主题——风险函数,从鼠疫期间一位店主发明它,到我们开发的多阶段风险方法。重要的是,当代方法允许针对特定患者进行预测,这对于推荐治疗方案和获得患者知情同意很有用。在当代医学中,分子水平的研究似乎有望使观察性临床研究过时;然而,一系列所谓的结果研究却出现了。然而,现在的危险在于,新的力量和理念正在推动这种兴趣,而这些力量和理念不像过去那样紧密契合改善个体患者护理和长期结果的必要性。