Byar D P, Simon R M, Friedewald W T, Schlesselman J J, DeMets D L, Ellenberg J H, Gail M H, Ware J H
N Engl J Med. 1976 Jul 8;295(2):74-80. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197607082950204.
In spite of the controversy over the role of randomized clinical trials in medical research, the rationale underlying such trials remains persuasive as compared to recent suggestions for alternative non-randomized studies such as those relying on the use of historical controls and adjustment technics. Others have suggested that recent statistical innovations for improving clinical trials, including adaptive allocation of treatment to patients and sequential stopping procedures, are underutilized. These innovations, though theoretically interesting, are not easily adapted to large-scale, complex medical trials in which there may be multiple end points and delayed response times. Ethical considerations suggest that randomized trials are more suitable than uncontrolled experimentation in protecting the interests of patients. Randomized clinical trials remain the most reliable method for evaluating the efficacy of therapies.
尽管随机临床试验在医学研究中的作用存在争议,但与最近提出的替代非随机研究(如依赖历史对照和调整技术的研究)相比,此类试验背后的基本原理仍然具有说服力。其他人认为,最近用于改进临床试验的统计创新,包括对患者的治疗进行适应性分配和序贯停止程序,未得到充分利用。这些创新虽然在理论上很有趣,但不容易适用于可能有多个终点和延迟反应时间的大规模、复杂的医学试验。伦理考量表明,在保护患者利益方面,随机试验比无对照实验更合适。随机临床试验仍然是评估治疗效果最可靠的方法。