首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Medical Ethics >Ethics and statistical methodology in clinical trials.
【2h】

Ethics and statistical methodology in clinical trials.

机译:临床试验中的伦理学和统计方法。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Statisticians in medicine can disagree on appropriate methodology applicable to the design and analysis of clinical trials. So called Bayesians and frequentists both claim ethical superiority. This paper, by defining and then linking together various dichotomies, argues there is a place for both statistical camps. The choice between them depends on the phase of clinical trial, disease prevalence and severity, but supremely on the ethics underlying the particular trial. There is always a tension present between physicians primarily obligated to their own patients (the weight of 'individual ethics') and ethical committees responsible for the scientific merit of the trial and its long-term implications ('collective ethics'). Individual ethics, it is proposed, favour the Bayesian approach; collective ethics, the frequentist. Though in some situations the choice appears clear-cut, there remain other where both methodologies can be appropriate.
机译:医学统计学家可能在适用于临床试验设计和分析的适当方法论上存在分歧。所谓的贝叶斯主义者和常客主义者都主张道德上的优势。通过定义然后将各种二分法联系在一起,本文认为这两个统计阵营都有地方。它们之间的选择取决于临床试验的阶段,疾病的流行程度和严重性,但最高取决于特定试验所依据的伦理。主要由自己的患者承担的医师(“个人伦理”的权重)与负责该试验的科学价值及其长期影响(“集体伦理”)的伦理委员会之间始终存在紧张关系。有人提出,个人伦理学支持贝叶斯方法。集体伦理,常客。尽管在某些情况下选择似乎很明确,但在其他两种方法都适用的地方。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号