Two Views Of Medical Science - Observational Research Versus Randomized Trials
Main Category: Biology / BiochemistryAlso Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 11 Mar 2008 - 4:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
|
| Health Professional: | ![]() |
4 (1 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 0 posts |
"Two views about medical science seem to have split ever more apart over the past decades," says Jan Vandenbroucke (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands) in an essay in this week's PLoS Medicine.
One view, says the author, is that of medical researchers who rejoice in discoveries and explanations of causes of disease. "Discoveries happen when things are suddenly seen in another light: the odd course of a disease in a patient, the strange results of a lab experiment, a peculiar subgroup in the analysis of data, or some juxtaposition of papers in the literature."
The other view is that of medical researchers "whose aim is to set up studies to evaluate whether the patient's lot is really improved by the new therapies or diagnostics that looked so wonderful initially." The most developed branch of evaluation research is the randomized trial of a drug therapy.
Professor Vandenbrouke analyses in what respects these two views differ, and how they lead to opposite research hierarchies (with randomization on top for evaluation and at bottom for discovery and explanation), and explores the reasons why we need both views.
"We need both hierarchies," says the author, "the hierarchy of discovery and explanation as well as that of evaluation. Without new discoveries leading to potentially better diagnosis, prevention, or therapy, what would we do randomized trials on? Conversely, how could we know that a discovery is useful, if not rigidly evaluated?"
Professor Vandenbrouke's essay is based upon the prestigious Austin Bradford Hill Memorial Lecture given at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on April 24, 2007.
On the 11th March, responses from John Ioannidis and Philippe Autier will also appear alongside the essay. You will be able to view them online here.
Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science
Vandenbroucke JP (2008)
PLoS Med 5(3): e67
Please click here to view article online
About PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine is an open access, freely available international medical journal. It publishes original research that enhances our understanding of human health and disease, together with commentary and analysis of important global health issues.
http://www.plosmedicine.org
About the Public Library of Science
The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource.
Public Library of Science
185 Berry Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94107
USA
|
Please rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
| Back to top | Back to front page | List of All Medical Articles |
| Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | © 2009 MediLexicon International Ltd |






