The MDiTV service presents a nice little package explaining the difference between observational studies and experimental trials. I was interviewed by young journalist Amira Dughri for this segment – my first Skype video interview right from my home office! And my friend Andrew Holtz anchors the segment, explaining therein that he is also one of our story reviewers on HealthNewsReview.org.
Take a look by visiting this link.
This segment adds to a growing number of resources that journalists can tap to learn how to more accurately describe such studies – including a text primer we’ve posted on this site.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Greg Pawelski
May 15, 2010 at 8:41 amThe randomized, controlled clinical trial may likely remain the standard for evidence of clinical decision-making in cancer medicine, however, observational methods and systematic reviews are clearly useful.
Single arm clinical trials provide the tumor response (efficacy) evidence that is the basis for approving new cancer drugs. The vast majority of clinical trials performed are ones that test a new chemotherapeutic regimen against a placebo.
Even with the importance of clinical trials, it is crucial to work on reducing their inherent limitations, including uncertain generalizations, and to expand the use of the randomized clinical trial paradigm to areas beyond proving biological activity, like diagnostic testing.
Evidence based medicine, since the 1970’s, depended upon the randomized, controlled trial. It rests upon the assumption that evidence should be determined and applied as a basis for medical decision-making.
Evidence is based upon quantities, similarities, populations, and averages, rather than qualities, idiosyncracies, individualization, and specifics.
It would be surprising if the most ardent supporter of evidence based medicine would ever advocate a randomized trial for an intervention in which an observational study showed remarkable efficacy in preventing a near death situation.
Many major medical advances have never been subjected to a prospective randomized study before being introduced into routine management because their beneficial effects have been obvious.
Recognizing the reliability of the evidence upon which clinical practice has increasingly come to depend, the time has come for physicians to reassess the value of direct observation, and to trust more readily both the empirical and intuitive discoveries they make each day in their personal experience, even if those discoveries are contradicted by the best available evidence.
There could be nothing more serious than the call for physicians to reconsider what it means to be authentic and true.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like