Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
2
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1984-1-7
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The need for randomization as a means of controlling confounders is accentuated in the study of intended effects (efficacy) as compared with unintended ones (toxicity). The basic reason is that the indication for intervention is inherently a confounder in the study of efficacy but not of toxicity, whereas contraindications represent only a minor confounder even in toxicity research. Moreover, control of the indication in non-experimental terms is commonly infeasible owing to the complexity and subtlety of the indication.
|
| pubmed:grant | |
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:issn |
0277-6715
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
2
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
267-71
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:articleTitle |
The need for randomization in the study of intended effects.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study,
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
|