Urbach P
Department of Philosophy, Logic & Scientific Method, London School of Economics, U.K.
Stat Med. 1993 Aug;12(15-16):1421-31; discussion 1433-41. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780121508.
This paper examines the two principal justifications that have been offered for the standard conditions that clinical trials be randomized and controlled, with the conclusion that, strictly speaking, neither justification is valid. It is argued, on the other hand, that a Bayesian analysis of clinical trials affords a valid, intuitively plausible rationale for selective controls, and marks out a more limited role for randomization than it is generally accorded. The feasibility of retrospective trials is then considered in the light of these conclusions.
本文审视了为临床试验应采用随机化和对照的标准条件所提供的两种主要理由，得出的结论是，严格来说，这两种理由都不成立。另一方面，有人认为，对临床试验进行贝叶斯分析为选择性对照提供了一个有效的、直观上合理的理论依据，并且表明随机化所起的作用比通常认为的更为有限。然后根据这些结论来考量回顾性试验的可行性。
