Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-pxp6n Total loading time: 0.151 Render date: 2021-06-20T10:34:18.234Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Evaluating New Treatments and Diagnostic Technologies in Obstetrics: Practical Problems, Ethics, and Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Richard J. Lilford
Affiliation:
The University of Leeds

Extract

This article develops arguments for the use of decision theory, rather than intuition, to determine the size of trials. It is wrong to expect doctors to ignore personal preferences in favor of clinical experiments unless the trial is capable of showing differences in treatment effect that would influence clinical practice substantially. It follows from our analysis that if delta (the treatment effect that the trial is designed to detect) is sufficient to alter clinical practice, then the alpha and beta errors of a trial should be equal. This applies even if a new treatment is to be compared with conventional therapy or if a treatment with high “costs” is compared with a less invasive or more inexpensive method.

Type
Special Section: Technology Assessment and Surgical Policy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Altman, D. G.Size of clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 1983, 286, 1842–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, J. F. R., Tyrrell, S., & Lilford, R. J.Prolonged pregnancy. British Medical Journal, 1987, 295, 56–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, P., Lilford, R. J.The management of the selected term breech presentation: Assessment of the risk of selected vaginal delivery versus Caesarean section for all cases. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1987, 69, 965–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I., Hetherington, J., Newdick, M. et al. The Oxford database of perinatal trials: Developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1986, 7, 306–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I., Sinclair, J. C.Promoting perinatal health: Is it time for a change in emphasis in research? Early Human Development, 1985, 10, 171–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adherence to treatment and response on cholesterol and on mortality in the coronary drug. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 1038–41.Google Scholar
DeBono, M., Fawdry, R., & Lilford, R. J. Decision theory to determine the size of the trial required to evaluate tests of fetal well-being. Submitted for publication, 1989.Google Scholar
Dudley, H. A. F.Stones, lithotripters and arguments. British Medical Journal, 1986, 292, 846–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, B.Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 317, 141–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilford, R. J.Clinical experimentation in obstetrics. British Medical Journal, 1987, 295, 12981300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilford, R. J., & Anscombe, G. E. M.Sins of omission? The non-treatment of controls in clinical trials. Aristotelian Society, 1983, 57, 297322.Google Scholar
Lowry, S.New Zealand smear trials risked lives. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 507–08.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D., Grant, A., Sheridan-Pereira, M., Boylan, P., & Chalmers, I. The Dublin randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1985, 152–9.Google Scholar
McNaughton, M. C., Chalmers, I. G., & Chamberlain, G. V. P.MRC/RCOG working party on cervical cerclage. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1988, 95, 437–45.Google Scholar
Matthews, D.Clinical experimentation in obstetrics. British Medical Journal, 1988, 296, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowbray, J. F., Gibbings, C., Liddell, R., Reginald, P. W., Underwood, J. L., & Beard, R. W.Controlled trial of treatment of recurrent spontaneous abortion by immunization with potential cells. Lancet, 1985, 1, 941–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellacy, W. M., Buhl, W. C., & Berk, S. A.The effectiveness of HPL measurement as an adjunct in decreasing perinatal death. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1975, 121, 835–39.Google Scholar
Tabor, A., Philip, J., Madsen, M., Bang, J., Obel, F. B., Norgaard-Pedersen, . Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low risk women. Lance, 1986, 1287–93.Google Scholar
Thornton, J., & Lilford, R. J.When a woman asks for a Caeserean section. British Medical Journal, 1987, 294, 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, G. W.Measurement of the health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 1986, 5, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, N. R., Lilford, R. J., & Osbourne, J.A basic programme to perform power calculations. Computers in Patient Care Survey, 1987, 4, 47.Google Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluating New Treatments and Diagnostic Technologies in Obstetrics: Practical Problems, Ethics, and Solutions
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluating New Treatments and Diagnostic Technologies in Obstetrics: Practical Problems, Ethics, and Solutions
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluating New Treatments and Diagnostic Technologies in Obstetrics: Practical Problems, Ethics, and Solutions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *