Limitations of Nonscience in Surgical Epistemology: The Second-Look Laparotomy

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Baum
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Second Look ◽  
Complex Process

Decision-making in medicine is a very complex process that demands input both from the doctor and from the client. From the doctor's point of view, the most important component for this decision concerns the quality of evidence available that the recommended intervention is the best available in terms of both cost and benefit. Good quality evidence demands good quality science. The randomized controlled trial is the expression of this scientific process at work within medical practice. This article reviews both the rationale and the ethics of randomized controlled trials in the epistemology of surgery. The ethical dilemma is accentuated because surgery by its very nature is invasive and often irreversible. As an illustration of the scientific and ethical dilemmas arising out of randomized controlled trials in surgery, a description of the CEA directed second-look laparotomy trial in the United Kingdom is provided. This trial may be judged essential because of the clash of attitudes between surgeons in the United States and the United Kingdom. It is unlikely that the truth lies entirely with one or other national groupings of surgeons, and this randomized trial will eventually resolve a conflict of ideas to the ultimate benefit of all patients with operable colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals The randomised controlled trial in medical research: using bibliometric methods to identify core journals

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
John Loy
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
The United States ◽  
Growth Patterns ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

A review of: Tsay, Migh-yueh, and Yen-hsu Yang. “Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 93.4 (October 2005): 450-58. Objective – To explore the characteristics and distribution of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature. The study aims to identify the growth patterns of the RCT, key subject matter, country and language of publication, and determine a list of core journals which contain a substantial proportion of the RCT literature. Design – Retrospective analysis of RCTs. Setting – Medical journal literature. Subjects – A total of 160,213 articles published between 1965-2001. Detailed analysis of a subset numbering 114,850 articles published from 1990-2001. Methods – The study seeks to identify all RCTs in MEDLINE from 1965-2001, and examines the growth rate of the RCT. The authors then do a more detailed analysis on a subset of data from 1990-2001, using Access database and Excel spreadsheet software, and PERL programming language. The references were analyzed by five fields within MEDLINE; publication type, source, language, country of publication, and descriptor (subject index). Main results – An exponential growth rate for the RCT is demonstrated, suggesting that in the medical literature development has not yet matured and that research using this method continues to grow. A growth rate for the RCT of 11.2% per annum is identified. The most common form of publication is the journal article, making up approximately 98% of the RCT literature. Approximately 75% of the RCTs are multicentre trials indicating that this is the design of choice adopted by researchers. The United States proves to be the greatest source of RCT literature, with 39.9% of journals and 50.6% of articles originating there. After the USA, the most productive countries are England (15.8% of journals and 21.7% articles) and Germany (6.5% journals and 6.1% articles). As might be expected, English is the predominant language providing 92.9% of the total publications. Of the remaining 7%, German is the most common language accounting for 2.2%. The top three areas being researched are: 1. Drug therapy for hypertension - 2291 citations 2. Anticancer drug combinations - 2140 citations 3. Drug therapy and asthma - 1397 citations Bradford’s law of scattering is successfully applied, identifying four zones of journals which each publish approximately 26,000 articles. Conclusion – The results indicate that bibliometric methods can be applied to the medical literature, and highlight those disciplines in which RCTs more often occur. A core list of 42 journal titles is presented, providing busy practitioners with invaluable guidance as to which journals are most likely to publish the greater number of RCTs.

scholarly journals History of controlled trials in medicine: real priorities are little-known. Report 2. From early experiments to the present day: without alternation and randomization

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-444
Author(s):  
A. N. Koterov ◽  
O. A. Tikhonova ◽  
L. N. Ushenkova ◽  
A. P. Biryukov
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
The United States ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Social Significance ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Uk

The aim of the three-report review is the historical development of clinical trials, controlled trials (CT) and randomized controlled trials (RCT), and the inclusion of these approaches in health-related disciplines (Medicine and Epidemiology). Report 2 provides a description of the wellknown James Lind Library (JLL), as well as a formed database of sources on the theme. JLL was internationalized, although most of the papers belong to authors from the UK. Many studies on the history of CT and RCT are reflected in JLL publications, but remain unclaimed without changing on common milestones and priorities. Besides, the formed base of sources included 9 studies not reflected in the JLL, of which three are principled. Six of them are given in Report 2.Half of historical milestones on the theme (168 in total) belong to the United Kingdom, 23% to the United States, and 4% to the Italy. The remaining 19 countries, ancient, medieval and modern, contribute 0.6–4% (Russia – 1.2% by the 20th century). The earliest source on the history of CT is J.P. Bull’s dissertation (1951). The formed database as of July 2020 contained more than 260 publications, and only 9 of them were Russian (2005–2018). The base includes 7 western dissertations on the history of CT.The object of the Report 2 study was CT as such, without any attempts at randomization or even quasi-randomization by alternate allocation. The most comprehensive thematic table on non-randomized CTs has been compiled, including studies from the Chinese emperor Shen Nung (2373 BC) and the prophet Daniel (6th century BC), to BCG vaccination for children of Canadian Indians (1941–1949). PubMed search on ‘non-randomized controlled trial’ was made. For the period of 1990–2020 years, 303 publications were found (up to 32 papers in 2020). Compared to RCT, the number of such studies is small (estimated at 0.08%), but it is important to have an appropriate conjuncture in the modern period. Along with the fact that most of the drugs and therapies currently in use are developed without RCT, the revealed ‘immortality’ of CT, even without quasi-randomization, can have social significance, removing complexes and embarrassment in cases where neither RCT nor even quasi-RCT is possible, but social and public needs require the immediate receipt of at least an approximate answer to hot questions of public health (for example, in 2020).

scholarly journals Effects of Side-Effect Risk Framing Strategies on COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions in the United States and the United Kingdom: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikkil Sudharsanan ◽  
Caterina Favaretti ◽  
Violetta Hachaturyan ◽  
Till Baernighausen ◽  
Alain Vandormael
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
The United States ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Framing Strategies

Vaccination rates have stagnated in the United States and the United Kingdom leading to the continuing spread of COVID-19. Fear and concern over vaccine side-effects is one of the main drivers of hesitancy. Drawing from behavioral science and health communication theory, we conducted a randomized controlled trial among 8998 adults to determine whether the way COVID-19 vaccine side-effects are framed and presented to individuals can influence their willingness to take a vaccine. We presented participants information on a hypothetical future COVID-19 vaccine -- including information on its side-effect rate -- and then examined the effect of three side-effect framing strategies on individuals stated willingness to take this vaccine: adding a qualitative risk label next to the numerical risk, adding comparison risks, and for those presented with comparisons, framing the comparison in relative rather than absolute terms. Based on a pre-registered and published analysis plan, we found that adding a simple descriptive risk label (very low risk) next to the numerical side-effect increased participants' willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine by 3.0 percentage points (p = 0.003). Providing a comparison to motor vehicle mortality increased COVID-19 vaccine willingness by 2.4 percentage points (p = 0.051). These effects were independent and additive: participants that received both a qualitative risk label and comparison to motor-vehicle mortality were 6.1 percentage points (p < 0.001) more likely to report willingness to take a vaccine compared to those who did not receive a label or comparison. Taken together, our results reveal that despite increasingly strong vaccination hesitancy and exposure to large amounts of vaccine misinformation, low-cost side-effect framing strategies can meaningfully affect vaccination intentions at a population level.

scholarly journals The Timing of Initiating Complementary Feeding in Preterm Infants and Its Effect on Overweight: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin M. Vissers ◽  
Edith J.M. Feskens ◽  
Johannes B. van Goudoever ◽  
Arieke J. Janse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Complementary Feeding ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Term Infants ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: What is the appropriate time to start complementary feeding for preterm infants? The answer to this question is yet under debate. The timing of initiating complementary feeding may be associated with overweight in term infants. This systematic review aimed to study the effect of the timing of initiating complementary feeding on overweight in preterm infants. Predefined search items included preterm infants, complementary feeding, overweight, and their synonyms. Summary: The search identified 15,749 articles, of which 5 articles were included. Three studies presented data of randomized controlled trials and 2 studies were cohort studies. Two randomized controlled trials found no significant difference in body mass index (BMI) Z-score between the intervention groups at 12 months of age. One randomized controlled trial presented a significant greater mean rate of growth in length per week until 12 months in the preterm weaning strategy-group compared with the current best practices. One observational study concluded that each month the infants received complementary food later, the Z-score for length and weight was reduced by 0.1. Key Messages: No clear conclusion could be drawn from the included studies. This review illustrates the need for further research to access the effect of the timing of initiating complementary feeding on overweight in preterm infants.

scholarly journals Designing and Evaluating Culturally Specific Smoking Cessation Interventions for American Indian Communities

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven S. Fu ◽  
Kristine L. Rhodes ◽  
Christina Robert ◽  
Rachel Widome ◽  
Jean L. Forster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
American Indian ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
American Indians ◽  
The United States ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Culturally Specific ◽  
Indian Community ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Indian Community

Abstract Introduction: American Indians have the highest smoking rates in the United States, yet few randomized controlled trials of culturally specific interventions exist. This study assessed American Indians’ opinions about evidence-based treatment and attitudes toward participating in clinical trials. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted based on smoking status (current/former smoker), sex, and elder status (55 years and older or younger). Meetings were held at local American Indian community organizations. This project was accomplished in partnership with the American Indian Community Tobacco Projects, a community–academic research partnership at the University of Minnesota. Thematic qualitative data analyses were conducted. Results: Participants desired the following: (a) programs led by trained American Indian community members, (b) the opportunity to connect with other American Indian smokers interested in quitting, and (c) programs promoting healthy lifestyles. Strategies desired for treatment included (a) free pharmacotherapy, including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); (b) nominal incentives, e.g., gift cards for groceries; and (c) culturally specific program components such as American Indian images, education on traditional tobacco use, and quit-smoking messages that target the value of family and include narratives or story telling in recruitment and program materials. Biochemical verification of smoking abstinence, such as salivary cotinine or carbon monoxide breathalyzers, is likely acceptable. Standard treatment or delayed treatment control groups were viewed as potentially acceptable for randomized study designs. Conclusions: Rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials of culturally specific smoking cessation interventions are sorely needed but will only be accomplished with the commitment of funders, researchers, and collaborative trusting relationships with the community.

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010–2015 on migraine drug treatments

Cephalalgia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (12) ◽  
pp. 1885-1895
Author(s):  
Peer Tfelt-Hansen ◽  
Janus Kaufmann Lindqvist ◽  
Thien Phu Do
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
International Headache Society ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Migraine Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Acute Administration ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the “evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine”. They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements. Methods We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts. Results We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events. Conclusion Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

scholarly journals Does pregabalin effectively and safely relieve postoperative pain in patients undergoing pulmonary resections?

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangjiang Li ◽  
Wenbiao Zhang ◽  
Shan Cheng ◽  
Yongjiang Li
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perioperative Period ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Study Type

Summary A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether pregabalin could effectively and safely reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing pulmonary resections. Altogether 23 papers were found using the reported search, of which 6 randomized controlled trials represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Five of 6 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the application of oral pregabalin during the perioperative period could effectively reduce postoperative pain after pulmonary resections without compromising patients’ safety. One randomized controlled trial reported no difference in the postoperative pain levels between the pregabalin group and the control group. The rates of adverse effects were generally found to be decreased in patients who received pregabalin compared to the patients who received routine analgesia, although 2 studies reported significantly higher incidences of mild drowsiness and dizziness among the pregabalin-treated patients. Currently available evidence supports that the perioperative administration of pregabalin can effectively and safely relieve postoperative pain for patients undergoing pulmonary resections.

Person-Centered Research: A novel approach to Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 209
Author(s):  
Reza A Badian ◽  
Brendan McCormack ◽  
Vibeke Sundling
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Novel Design

Introduction: Integrating person-centered values with randomized controlled trials methodology is a novel idea. Person-centeredness is gaining steadily more prominence and attention in healthcare and health-related policy and research. Randomized controlled trials are considered as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine for evaluating the effects of treatment or determining the causal effect. A wide array of study designs is available, but there is a lack of designs with both strong person-centered principles and a strong position with respect to the level of evidence. In this paper we intend to introduce a novel design to fill such a gap.Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel study design where essential values of person-centered care (PCC) are integrated with randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology into a novel study design termed a person-centered randomized controlled trial (PC-RCT).Methods: In this paper we discuss the importance and role of evidence in clinical research, levels of evidence, as well as the significance of study design in evidence-based medicine. Moreover, we discuss randomized controlled trials that are considered the gold standard to achieve high quality evidence. In this paper we will explain what the concept of person-centered care is and discuss the values associated with person-centeredness.The theoretical and methodological considerations that are relevant in applying this concept will be discussed before presenting how we intend to incorporate person-centered values into a randomized controlled trial in a novel study design that is both person-centered and randomized controlled (PC-RCT). Different aspects of this proposed novel study design will be discussed, including the theory and methods underlying this new proposed design, its novelty, different stages and practical steps involved in this proposed design. Challenges, drawbacks and possible solutions for addressing challenges of this novel design will be explored, focusing on the construct, dynamics, advantages, disadvantages and novelty of PC-RCT design.Conclusion: This paper presents how person-centered values and traditional randomised controlled trial principal values are integrated into one study design where the strengths of both concepts are merged into one. The proposed novel study design has stronger person-centered characteristics and is solid in its RCT features. This design ensures that participants have much more active participation in decision-making and gain more choice in their treatment. The proposed novel study design in this paper has clearly an important role to play in satisfying the need for a study design that can address both the need for rendering higher levels of evidence as well as simultaneously securing greater integration of person-centered values in the same study design.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document