Randomized controlled trials: Often flawed, mostly useless, clearly indispensable: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Randomized controlled trials: Often flawed, mostly useless, clearly indispensable: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright

Published:2018-08 Issue: Volume:210 Page:53-56
ISSN:0277-9536
Container-title:Social Science & Medicine
language:en
Short-container-title:Social Science & Medicine

Author:

Ioannidis John P.A.

Publisher

Elsevier BV

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Health (social science)

Reference46 articles.

1. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials;Anglemyer;Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.,2014

2. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments;Boutron;PLoS Med.,2007

3. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world;Brownlee;Lancet,2017

4. Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990-2015;Chavalarias;J. Am. Med. Assoc.,2015

5. How to prove that your therapy is effective, even when it is not: a guideline;Cuijpers;Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci.,2016

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A primer on the validity typology and threats to validity in education research;Asia Pacific Education Review;2024-03-30

2. Designing observational studies for credible causal inference in addiction research—Directed acyclic graphs, modified disjunctive cause criterion and target trial emulation;Addiction;2024-02-11

3. Design differences explain variation in results between randomized trials and their non-randomized emulations;2023-07-13

4. “Randomistas”: A new development economics;Voprosy Ekonomiki;2023-06-05

5. Distributional causal effects: Beyond an “averagarian” view of intervention effects.;Psychological Methods;2022-10-06