What’s in a gold standard? : In defence of randomised controlled trials

Zitieren

Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Dateien Größe Format Anzeige

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

BACKMANN, Marius, 2017. What’s in a gold standard? : In defence of randomised controlled trials. In: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20(4), pp. 513-523. ISSN 1386-7423. eISSN 1572-8633. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11019-017-9773-2

@article{Backmann2017-12Whats-38614, title={What’s in a gold standard? : In defence of randomised controlled trials}, year={2017}, doi={10.1007/s11019-017-9773-2}, number={4}, volume={20}, issn={1386-7423}, journal={Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy}, pages={513--523}, author={Backmann, Marius} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/38614"> <dcterms:issued>2017-12</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dcterms:title>What’s in a gold standard? : In defence of randomised controlled trials</dcterms:title> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/38614"/> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/jspui"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-04-25T15:06:28Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Backmann, Marius</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Backmann, Marius</dc:contributor> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-04-25T15:06:28Z</dc:date> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The standardised randomised clinical trial (RCT) has been exceedingly popular in medical research, economics, and practical policy making. Recently, RCTs have faced criticism. First, it has been argued by John Worrall that we cannot be certain that our sample is not atypical with regard to possible confounding factors. I will argue that at least in the case of medical research, we know enough about the relevant causal mechanisms to be justified to ignore a number of factors we have good reason not to expect to be disruptive. I will also argue against an argument provided by Nancy Cartwright and Eileen Munro that RCTs should not be taken to deductively infer probabilistic causal claims, but ampliatively. The paper will end on a discussion of evidence hierarchies and a defence of the stance of evidence-based medicine that RCTs are the best available method to assess a treatment's efficacy.</dcterms:abstract> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Das Dokument erscheint in:

KOPS Suche


Stöbern

Mein Benutzerkonto