 |
|
Methodological Standards in Human vs Animal Clinical Trials
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: Dr Pluta and colleagues found a significant benefit from the use of sodium nitrite in preventing delayed vasospasm following subarachnoid hemorrhage in a study of 14 monkeys.1 We are concerned about these conclusions given certain aspects of the study design.
Animal models allow well-controlled evaluation of new therapies prior to definitive studies in humans. However, these models do not eliminate the potential biases that are well-described in human studies. Human trials use random treatment allocation to distribute the variability among patients evenly between treatment groups.2 While the biological variation among subjects may be less in animal models than in human populations, genetic equivalence cannot be assumed, and there may be significant differences between treatment groups.3 While this study is strengthened by blinded outcome assessment, the 2 treatment groups may still have differed with respect to important baseline and prognostic covariates. Furthermore, the treating investigators were not blinded . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Kennon Heard, MD
kennon.heard@uchsc.edu
Division of Emergency Medicine
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Denver
Vikhyat S. Bebarta, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine
Wilford Hall Medical Center
San Antonio, Tex
Steven R. Lowenstein, MD, MPH
Division of Emergency Medicine
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Denver
RELATED ARTICLES
Methodological Standards in Human vs Animal Clinical Trials—Reply
Ryszard M. Pluta, Mark T. Gladwin, and Edward H. Oldfield
JAMA. 2005;294(1):40-41.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Nitrite Infusions to Prevent Delayed Cerebral Vasospasm in a Primate Model of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Ryszard M. Pluta, Andre Dejam, George Grimes, Mark T. Gladwin, and Edward H. Oldfield
JAMA. 2005;293(12):1477-1484.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
