[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 23.23.50.247. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Commentary
September 13, 2006

Moderators of Treatment OutcomesClinical, Research, and Policy Importance

Author Affiliations
 

Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (Dr Kraemer); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, Pa (Drs Frank and Kupfer).

JAMA. 2006;296(10):1286-1289. doi:10.1001/jama.296.10.1286

For the last half-century, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been the “gold standard” of evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of clinical interventions. Randomized clinical trials are based on well-recognized principles1 that underlie guidelines, such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials),24 for reporting such studies. As frequently happens when practices become routine, the underlying logic fades into the background. This increasingly appears to be the case with RCT methodology. Even the best performed RCTs often fail to provide information most crucial to evaluating the treatment under study and thus to improving medical decision making.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×