致盲
医学
随机对照试验
临床试验
批判性评价
随机化
重症监护医学
医学物理学
梅德林
替代医学
外科
病理
政治学
法学
作者
Nathan Evaniew,Alonso Carrasco‐Labra,P.J. Devereaux,Kari A.O. Tikkinen,Yutong Fei,Mohit Bhandari,Gordon Guyatt
出处
期刊:JAMA Surgery
[American Medical Association]
日期:2016-03-30
卷期号:151 (7): 657-657
被引量:23
标识
DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0072
摘要
Because surgical procedures require clinicians to develop and maintain procedural expertise and because blinding in randomized clinical trials of such therapies is often challenging, their critical appraisal raises unique issues. Risk of bias of trials of surgical procedures increases if investigators fail to rigorously conceal allocation and, where possible, to ensure blinding of those involved in the trial. Variability in surgeons' expertise can also increase bias and lead to important limitations in applicability. To address these issues, this Users' Guide to the Medical Literature reviews the use of remote randomization systems, blinding, sham-controlled trials, split-body trials, expertise-based trials, and mechanistic vs practical trials. Consideration of risk of bias and applicability issues will allow clinicians to make optimal use of trials addressing surgical procedures.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI