PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10352372

[Problems of study designs with randomization, blinding and placebos].

Abstract

As randomised double-blind trials are not rarely demanded as a prerequisite for the scientific acceptance of complementary medicine, the author has analysed the soundness of this demand on the basis of the international literature. As a result there appeared a number of methodological, practical and ethical problems which question the theoretically deduced primal value of this study design relative to the needs of medical practice and of health insurance issues. The experimental instruments of randomisation, blinding and placebo deliberately exclude essential therapeutic factors which are integral elements of complementary medical concepts; therefore, it is suggested to supplement quantitatively and collectively oriented experimental research by non-experimental procedures, which adequately reflect the context- and practice-related individual reality.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Heusser. 1999. [Problems of study designs with randomization, blinding and placebos].. https://doi.org/10.1159/000021215

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗