[Skip to Navigation]
Comment & Response
March 2019

A Case for n-of-1 Trials—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento
  • 2Department of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
  • 3Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, New York
JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):453. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7180

In Reply The letters from Vohra and Punja and Smith about our recent Original Investigation1 underscore the same crucial point: patients may vary not only in their response to treatment, but also in their response to n-of-1 trials. Vohra and Punja offer an ardent counterpoint to Mirza and Guyatt’s conclusion that n-of-1 trials are a “beautiful idea being vanquished by cruel and ugly evidence.”2(1379) Smith’s story offers an inspiring example of how n-of-1 trials may be applied informally in the service of better, more patient-centered care.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words