This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Samuel Vaisrub, MD

JAMA. 1978;239(9):858.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In their informative assessment of 13 years of aortocoronary bypass surgery, DeBakey and Lawrie (p 837), dispute the necessity of prospective randomized studies for the evaluation of surgical diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. They point out that certain time-honored criteria, particularly clinical experience, have proved reliable in assessing therapeutic value. They state, "The insistence on prospective randomized studies reflects a naive obsession with this research tool."

In support of their statement, DeBakey and Lawrie could easily invoke the testimony of the past. Many great advances in medicine have been made without the benefit of controlled trials. The latter, in fact, is a mixed blessing. One shudders, for instance, to think what might have become of insulin had a controlled prospective trial reported a few deaths from hypoglycemic shock when this complication was unknown. Insulin might have been declared too toxic for human use. One also wonders about the number of fatalities . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Address editorial communications to the Editor, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?