Two Views Of Medical Science - Observational Research Versus Randomized Trials

Main Category: Biology / Biochemistry
Also Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials
Article Date: 11 Mar 2008 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

"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