Suppr超能文献

为什么我们需要观察性研究来评估医疗保健的有效性。

Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care.

作者信息

Black N

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

出版信息

BMJ. 1996 May 11;312(7040):1215-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215.

Abstract

The view is widely held that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the "gold standard" for evaluation and that observational methods (cohort and case control studies) have little or no value. This ignores the limitations of randomised trials, which may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. Many of the problems of conducting randomised trials could often, in theory, be overcome, but the practical implications for researchers and funding bodies mean that this is often not possible. The false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of the complementary roles of the two approaches. Researchers should be united in their quest for scientific rigour in evaluation, regardless of the method used.

摘要

人们普遍认为实验方法(随机对照试验)是评估的“金标准”,而观察性方法(队列研究和病例对照研究)几乎没有价值或毫无价值。这忽视了随机试验的局限性,随机试验可能被证明是不必要的、不恰当的、不可能的或不充分的。从理论上讲,进行随机试验的许多问题通常是可以克服的,但对研究人员和资助机构的实际影响意味着这往往是不可能的。在所有情况下都主张采用随机试验的人与认为观察性数据能提供充分证据的人之间的错误冲突,需要被这两种方法互补作用的相互认可所取代。无论使用何种方法,研究人员都应团结起来,在评估中追求科学严谨性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验