Real and Virtual Clinical Trials: A Formal Analysis

Topoi 38 (2):411-422 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

If well-designed, the results of a Randomised Clinical Trial can justify a causal claim between treatment and effect in the study population; however, additional information might be needed to carry over this result to another population. RCTs have been criticized exactly on grounds of failing to provide this sort of information Evidence, inference and enquiry. Oxford University Press, New York, 2011), as well as to black-box important details regarding the mechanisms underpinning the causal law instantiated by the RCT result. On the other side, so-called In Silico Clinical Trials face the same criticisms addressed against standard modelling and simulation techniques, and cannot be equated to experiments Philosophy of molecular medicine: foundational issues in research and practice, Routledge, New York, 2017; Parker in Synthese 169:483–496, 2009; Parke in Philos Sci 81:516–536, 2014; Diez Roux in Am J Epidemiol 181:100–102, 2015 and related discussions in Frigg and Reiss in Synthese 169:593–613, 2009; Winsberg in Synthese 169:575–592, 2009; Beisbart and Norton in Int Stud Philos Sci 26:403–422, 2012). We undertake a formal analysis of both methods in order to identify their distinct contribution to causal inference in the clinical setting. Britton et al.’s study :E2098–E2105, 2013) on the impact of ion current variability on cardiac electrophysiology is used for illustrative purposes. We deduce that, by predicting variability through interpolation, ISCTs aid with problems regarding extrapolation of RCTs results, and therefore in assessing their external validity. Furthermore, ISCTs can be said to encode “thick” causal knowledge —as opposed to “thin” difference-making information inferred from RCTs. Hence, ISCTs and RCTs cannot replace one another but rather, they are complementary in that the former provide information about the determinants of variability of causal effects, while the latter can, under certain conditions, establish causality in the first place.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What are randomised controlled trials good for?Nancy Cartwright - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (1):59 - 70.
What Theories Are Tested in Clinical Trials?Spencer Phillips Hey - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1318-1329.
Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics.Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):151 – 165.
A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials (with discussion).Donald A. Berry - 1993 - Statistics in Medicine 12 (15-16):1377-1393.
Bayesian versus frequentist clinical trials.David Teira - 2011 - In Gifford Fred (ed.), Philosophy of Medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 255-297.
Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment.Barbara Osimani - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (3):454-462.
An Argument for Fewer Clinical Trials.Kirstin Borgerson - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (6):25-35.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-05-26

Downloads
21 (#630,965)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Roland Poellinger
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Counterfactuals.David K. Lewis - 1973 - Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
The direction of time.Hans Reichenbach - 1956 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. Edited by Maria Reichenbach.
Causation.David Lewis - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (17):556-567.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.

View all 55 references / Add more references