Suppr超能文献

观察性研究能否取代或补充实验?

Can observational studies replace or complement experiment?

作者信息

van der Linden S, Goldsmith C H, Woodcock J, Nassonova V

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Limburg, University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994 Sep;41:57-61.

PMID:7799388
Abstract

The therapeutic effects of interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are frequently modest. In the assessment of treatments effects, variability due to a variety of sources causes problems that are best controlled by randomized clinical trials. Currently most trials give only a short term picture of RA, a chronic disease whose outcome is multidimensional. Inclusion criteria of clinical trials are frequently very strict, raising concern about the external validity of the results. More longterm data is needed to guide clinical practice. Observational studies may contribute to the body of evidence, but have inherent shortcomings. They are liable to bias and supply weaker evidence. There must be creative development of trial designs suitable for evaluating longterm outcomes. Such trials may include many of the positive features of observational studies, but should not omit the principles of randomization and controlled comparison.

摘要

对类风湿关节炎(RA)患者进行干预的治疗效果通常较为有限。在评估治疗效果时,多种来源导致的变异性会引发一些问题,而这些问题最好通过随机临床试验来控制。目前,大多数试验仅提供了RA这一慢性病短期的情况,其结果是多维度的。临床试验的纳入标准通常非常严格,这引发了对结果外部有效性的担忧。需要更多长期数据来指导临床实践。观察性研究可能有助于积累证据,但存在固有缺陷。它们容易产生偏差,提供的证据也较弱。必须创造性地开发适合评估长期结果的试验设计。此类试验可能包括观察性研究的许多积极特征,但不应忽略随机化和对照比较的原则。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验