Lancet
-
This two-part review is intended principally for practising clinicians who want to know why some types of evidence about the effects of treatment on survival, and on other major aspects of chronic disease outcome, are much more reliable than others. Although there are a few striking examples of treatments for serious disease which really do work extremely well, most claims for big improvements turn out to be evanescent. ⋯ By contrast, the reliable assessment of any more moderate effects of treatment on major outcomes--which are usually all that can realistically be expected from most treatments for most common serious conditions--requires studies that guarantee both strict control of bias (which, in general, requires proper randomisation and appropriate analysis, with no unduly data-dependent emphasis on specific parts of the overall evidence) and strict control of random error (which, in general, requires large numbers of deaths or of some other relevant outcome). Past failures to produce such evidence, and to interpret it appropriately, have already led to many premature deaths and much unnecessary suffering.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Bone-targeted therapy for advanced androgen-independent carcinoma of the prostate: a randomised phase II trial.
Prostate carcinoma is linked to osteoblastic metastasis. We therefore investigated the value of bone-targeted consolidation therapy in selected patients with advanced androgen-independent carcinoma of the prostate. ⋯ Bone-targeted consolidation therapy consisting of one dose of Sr-89 plus doxorubicin once a week for 6 weeks, when given to patients with stable or responding advanced androgen-independent carcinoma of the prostate after induction chemotherapy, improved overall survival.