Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[Which therapy comparisons are fair?].

Karl Wegscheider1

  • 1Institut für Statistik und Okonometrie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg. wegsch@econ.uni-hamburg.de

Zeitschrift Fur Arztliche Fortbildung Und Qualitatssicherung
|July 28, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Effectiveness and Safety of Early Rhythm Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology·2026
Same author

Left Atrial Appendage Closure or Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation.

The New England journal of medicine·2026
Same author

Heart rate in early rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Heart (British Cardiac Society)·2026
Same author

Assessing new treatments for central sleep Apnoea in heart failure: sample size considerations for reliable detection of safety signals.

Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung·2025
Same author

Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative and stepped care model in patients with mental disorders in German primary care (the COMET study).

BMC psychiatry·2025
Same author

Catheter-based left atrial appendage CLOSURE in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of stroke and bleeding as compared to best medical therapy: Rationale and design of the prospective randomized CLOSURE-AF trial.

American heart journal·2025

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and cognition-based medicine (CBM) offer different treatment comparison methods. Neither approach guarantees fair comparisons; a complementary strategy using multiple methods is recommended for robust evaluation.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Clinical trial evaluation
  • Comparative effectiveness research

Background:

  • Evidence-based medicine (EBM) prioritizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.
  • Cognition-based medicine (CBM) relies on physician-assessed individual causality.
  • Existing comparison methods face limitations in ensuring fairness.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the fairness of treatment comparison methods in EBM and CBM.
  • To identify inherent limitations in current comparative approaches.
  • To propose an improved strategy for fair and robust treatment evaluation.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of study-type hierarchies in EBM.
  • Examination of physician-based causality assessment in CBM.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Critical review of potential biases and generalizability issues in RCTs and meta-analyses.

    • Main Results:

    • RCTs may lack generalizability, and meta-analyses are susceptible to selection bias and ecological fallacy.
    • CBM approaches often lack sufficient control for confounding factors.
    • No single method inherently guarantees fair treatment comparisons.

    Conclusions:

    • Fairness in treatment comparison is not achieved through a single perfect method.
    • A complementary approach, integrating diverse evaluation methods, is essential.
    • Openly discussing the strengths and weaknesses of applied methods ensures transparency and validity.