Border zones of evidence: How non-evidence based factors influence evidence generation and clinical practice in stroke medicine
| Autor: | Shakir Husain, PR Srijithesh |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | University of Zurich |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Evidence-based practice business.industry Pooling border zones of evidence 610 Medicine & health acute stroke trials Interim analysis medicine.disease lcsh:RC346-429 Clinical Practice Clinical trial 10043 Clinic for Neuroradiology View Point stroke medicine Stopping rules Medicine Neurology (clinical) business Intensive care medicine Stroke lcsh:Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system |
| Zdroj: | Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, Vol 23, Iss 3, Pp 249-252 (2020) Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology |
| ISSN: | 1998-3549 0972-2327 |
| Popis: | The interpretation of the results of clinical trials should be done by examining the finer prints of extraneous factors such as stopping rules, interim analysis, intricacies of patient selection, and the rationale of decisions that lead to non-prespecified termination. This can be done only by critical education in the art and science of interpretation of evidence emerging from clinical trials. The pioneering pivotal studies, namely, NINDS rtPA and ECASS III trials, hold disproportionate influence in determining the contours of the subsequent fate of clinical trials and treatment guidelines. It needs to be recognized that the pooling of studies using dissimilar trial designs, notwithstanding similar patient profiles, would undermine the positive signal emerging from the studies that have used better selection methodologies to homogenize the study population. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
| Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje | K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit. |