Interpreting clinical trial results by deductive reasoning: In search of improved trial design

&
Bioessays 39 (10):1700103 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Clinical trial results are often interpreted by inductive reasoning, in a trial design-limited manner, directed toward modifications of the current clinical practice. Deductive reasoning is an alternative in which results of relevant trials are combined in indisputable premises that lead to a conclusion easily testable in future trials.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1002/bies.201700103

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Evaluating ethics consultation: randomised controlled trial is not the right tool.Y.-Y. Chen & Y.-C. Chen - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (8):594-597.
A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials (with discussion).Donald A. Berry - 1993 - Statistics in Medicine 12 (15-16):1377-1393.
The Duty to Disclose Adverse Clinical Trial Results.S. Matthew Liao, Mark Sheehan & Steve Clarke - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):24-32.
Ethical Considerations for Outcome‐adaptive Trial Designs: A Clinical Researcher's Perspective.Scott Brian Saxman - 2014 - Bioethics 29 (2):59-65.
Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Sara H. Vollmer & George Howard - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
Inefficacy Interim Monitoring Procedures in Randomized Clinical Trials: The Need to Report.Boris Freidlin & Edward L. Korn - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (3):2-10.
Clinical Trial Design for HIV Prevention Research: Determining Standards of Prevention.Liza Dawson & Sheryl Zwerski - 2014 - Bioethics 29 (5):316-323.
Clinical trials: Active control vs placebo — what is ethical?Jacek Spławiński & Jerzy Kuźniar - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):73-79.
Clinical trialist perspectives on the ethics of adaptive clinical trials: a mixed-methods analysis.Laurie J. Legocki, William J. Meurer, Shirley Frederiksen, Roger J. Lewis, Valerie L. Durkalski, Donald A. Berry, William G. Barsan & Michael D. Fetters - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):27.
Toward a Jurisprudence of Drug Regulation.Matthew Herder - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (2):244-262.
Competing Commitments in Clinical Trials.Charles Lidz, Paul Appelbaum, Steven Joffe, Karen Albert & Jill Rosenbaum - 2008 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 31 (5):1-6.
Design and implementation of the START trial, a phase 1/2 trial of human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells for the treatment of moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. [REVIEW]K. D. Liu, J. G. Wilson, H. Zhuo, L. Caballero, M. L. McMillan, X. Fang, K. Cosgrove, C. S. Calfee, J. W. Lee, K. N. Kangelaris, J. E. Gotts, A. J. Rogers, J. E. Levitt, J. P. Wiener-Kronish, K. L. Delucchi, A. D. Leavitt, D. H. McKenna, B. T. Thompson & M. A. Matthay - unknown
Are explanatory trials ethical? Shifting the burden of justification in clinical trial design.Kirstin Borgerson - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (4):293-308.
Subjects' views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study.N. Sofaer, C. Thiessen, S. D. Goold, J. Ballou, K. A. Getz, G. Koski, R. A. Krueger & J. S. Weissman - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):183-188.
Characterizing the Population in Clinical Trials: Barriers, Comparability, and Implications for Review.Charles Weijer - unknown

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-21

Downloads
13 (#929,643)

6 months
3 (#643,273)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
Deductive Reasoning.Philip Johnson-Laird - 1999 - Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1):109-135.

Add more references