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.
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.
Kravitz RL, Sim I, Duan N. A Case for n-of-1 Trials—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):453. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7180
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: