LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Border Zones of Evidence: How Non-evidence Based Factors Influence Evidence Generation and Clinical Practice in Stroke Medicine

Photo by satheeshsankaran from unsplash

The interpretation of the results of clinical trials should be done by examining the finer prints of extraneous factors such as stopping rules, interim analysis, intricacies of patient selection, and… Click to show full abstract

The interpretation of the results of clinical trials should be done by examining the finer prints of extraneous factors such as stopping rules, interim analysis, intricacies of patient selection, and the rationale of decisions that lead to non-prespecified termination. This can be done only by critical education in the art and science of interpretation of evidence emerging from clinical trials. The pioneering pivotal studies, namely, NINDS rtPA and ECASS III trials, hold disproportionate influence in determining the contours of the subsequent fate of clinical trials and treatment guidelines. It needs to be recognized that the pooling of studies using dissimilar trial designs, notwithstanding similar patient profiles, would undermine the positive signal emerging from the studies that have used better selection methodologies to homogenize the study population.

Keywords: medicine; border zones; evidence; clinical trials; evidence non; zones evidence

Journal Title: Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology
Year Published: 2020

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.