The Cochrane Lecture. The best and the enemy of the good: randomised controlled trials, uncertainty, and assessing the role of patient choice in medical decision making.

K McPherson

Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

This lecture aimed to create a bridge to span the conceptual and ideological gap between randomised controlled trials and systematic observational comparisons and to reduce unwanted and unproductive polarisation. The argument, simply put, is that since randomisation alone eliminates the selection effect of therapeutic decision making, anything short of randomisation to attribute cause to consequent outcome is a waste of time. If observational comparison does have any significant part in evaluating medical outcomes, there is a grave danger of "the best", to paraphrase Voltaire, becoming "the enemy of the good". The first section aims to emphasise the advantages of randomised controlled trials. Then the nature of an essential precondition--medical uncertainty--is discussed in terms of its extent and effect. Next, the role of patient choice in medical decision making is considered, both when outcomes can safely be attributed to treatment choice and when they cannot. There may be many important situations in which choice itself affects outcome and this could mean that random comparisons give biased estimates of true therapeutic effects. In the penultimate section, the implications of this possibility both for randomised controlled trials and for outcome research is pursued and lastly there are some simple recommendations for reliable outcome research.

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

Relevant Article

Randomised controlled trials.

M Newman
J Epidemiol Community Health 1994 48: 423-424. [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Anderson, P. A., McCormick, P. C., Angevine, P. D. (2008). Randomized Controlled Trials of the Treatment of Lumbar Disk Herniation: 1983-2007. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16: 566-573 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jubb, A M (2002). Palliative care research: trading ethics for an evidence base. J. Med. Ethics 28: 342-346 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Johnston, S. C., Henneman, T., McCulloch, C. E., van der Laan, M. (2002). Modeling Treatment Effects on Binary Outcomes with Grouped-Treatment Variables and Individual Covariates. Am J Epidemiol 156: 753-760 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McPherson, K, Britton, A (2001). Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Qual Saf Health Care 10: i61-66 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Protheroe, J., Fahey, T., Montgomery, A. A, Peters, T. J, Smeeth, L. (2000). The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis Commentary: patients, preferences, and evidence. BMJ 320: 1380-1384 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McKee, M., Britton, A., Black, N., McPherson, K., Sanderson, C., Bain, C. (1999). Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. BMJ 319: 312-315 [Full Text]  
• Featherstone, K., Donovan, J. L (1998). Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 317: 1177-1180 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wiegers, T A, Keirse, M J N C, van der Zee, J, Berghs, G A H (1996). Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. BMJ 313: 1309-1313 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cuttler, L., Silvers, J. B., Singh, J., Marrero, U., Finkelstein, B., Tannin, G., Neuhauser, D. (1996). Short Stature and Growth Hormone Therapy: A National Study of Physician Recommendation Patterns. JAMA 276: 531-537 [Abstract]  
• McKee, M, Sanderson, C (1994). Commentary: measures of early postoperative mortality. BMJ 309: 365-6 [Full Text]