The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer
To the Editor: The difficulty of randomizing conventional cancer treatments has led Cassileth et al. (April 25 issue) 1 to adopt a convoluted study design that cannot, even if the major defects in its statistical analysis are rectified, provide reliable evidence as to whether the particular unconven...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The New England journal of medicine 1991-10, Vol.325 (15), p.1103-1105 |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1105 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 15 |
| container_start_page | 1103 |
| container_title | The New England journal of medicine |
| container_volume | 325 |
| description | To the Editor:
The difficulty of randomizing conventional cancer treatments has led Cassileth et al. (April 25 issue)
1
to adopt a convoluted study design that cannot, even if the major defects in its statistical analysis are rectified, provide reliable evidence as to whether the particular unconventional method studied affects survival in advanced cancer. Their comparison of conventional with unconventional treatment (the Livingston-Wheeler treatment) in 78 pairs of patients with advanced cancer was neither randomized nor large, so it may be subject to both bias and substantial random error. Hence, although it may provide useful evidence against absurdly big expectations of . . . |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1056/NEJM199110103251512 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72094113</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72094113</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-9a58586838cd53746e660157ed9b6bbb0500de84505639de1fe0f1a81a8c5ef43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UEtLw0AQXkSptfoLRMjJi0Rnso_sHkupL6pe2nPIYxZbmqTuNoX-e7ek4kUcBgbmezDzMXaNcI8g1cP79PUNjUEEBJ5IlJicsCFKzmMhQJ2yIUCiY5Eafs4uvF9BKBRmwAaoTVCJIdPzT4qm1lK5jVobLZqNa3dURZO8KclFAXX5Zh8tm2hc7Q67H-iSndl87enqOEds8TidT57j2cfTy2Q8i8tEq21scqmlVprrspI8FYqUApQpVaZQRVGABKhICxke4qYitAQWcx26lGQFH7Hb3jcc9tWR32b10pe0XucNtZ3P0gSMQOSByHti6VrvHdls45Z17vYZQnbIK_sjr6C6Odp3RU3Vr6YPKOB3PV7XPmtoVf_r9g34W28x</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72094113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>New England Journal of Medicine Current</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><description>To the Editor:
The difficulty of randomizing conventional cancer treatments has led Cassileth et al. (April 25 issue)
1
to adopt a convoluted study design that cannot, even if the major defects in its statistical analysis are rectified, provide reliable evidence as to whether the particular unconventional method studied affects survival in advanced cancer. Their comparison of conventional with unconventional treatment (the Livingston-Wheeler treatment) in 78 pairs of patients with advanced cancer was neither randomized nor large, so it may be subject to both bias and substantial random error. Hence, although it may provide useful evidence against absurdly big expectations of . . .</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-4793</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-4406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199110103251512</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1891014</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Massachusetts Medical Society</publisher><subject>Complementary Therapies ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Neoplasms - mortality ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Quality of Life ; Survival Rate</subject><ispartof>The New England journal of medicine, 1991-10, Vol.325 (15), p.1103-1105</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-9a58586838cd53746e660157ed9b6bbb0500de84505639de1fe0f1a81a8c5ef43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199110103251512$$EPDF$$P50$$Gmms$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199110103251512$$EHTML$$P50$$Gmms$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2759,2760,26103,27924,27925,52382,54064,64387</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1891014$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><title>The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer</title><title>The New England journal of medicine</title><addtitle>N Engl J Med</addtitle><description>To the Editor:
The difficulty of randomizing conventional cancer treatments has led Cassileth et al. (April 25 issue)
1
to adopt a convoluted study design that cannot, even if the major defects in its statistical analysis are rectified, provide reliable evidence as to whether the particular unconventional method studied affects survival in advanced cancer. Their comparison of conventional with unconventional treatment (the Livingston-Wheeler treatment) in 78 pairs of patients with advanced cancer was neither randomized nor large, so it may be subject to both bias and substantial random error. Hence, although it may provide useful evidence against absurdly big expectations of . . .</description><subject>Complementary Therapies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Neoplasms - mortality</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Survival Rate</subject><issn>0028-4793</issn><issn>1533-4406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1991</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UEtLw0AQXkSptfoLRMjJi0Rnso_sHkupL6pe2nPIYxZbmqTuNoX-e7ek4kUcBgbmezDzMXaNcI8g1cP79PUNjUEEBJ5IlJicsCFKzmMhQJ2yIUCiY5Eafs4uvF9BKBRmwAaoTVCJIdPzT4qm1lK5jVobLZqNa3dURZO8KclFAXX5Zh8tm2hc7Q67H-iSndl87enqOEds8TidT57j2cfTy2Q8i8tEq21scqmlVprrspI8FYqUApQpVaZQRVGABKhICxke4qYitAQWcx26lGQFH7Hb3jcc9tWR32b10pe0XucNtZ3P0gSMQOSByHti6VrvHdls45Z17vYZQnbIK_sjr6C6Odp3RU3Vr6YPKOB3PV7XPmtoVf_r9g34W28x</recordid><startdate>19911010</startdate><enddate>19911010</enddate><general>Massachusetts Medical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19911010</creationdate><title>The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer</title></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c286t-9a58586838cd53746e660157ed9b6bbb0500de84505639de1fe0f1a81a8c5ef43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1991</creationdate><topic>Complementary Therapies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Neoplasms - mortality</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Survival Rate</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The New England journal of medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer</atitle><jtitle>The New England journal of medicine</jtitle><addtitle>N Engl J Med</addtitle><date>1991-10-10</date><risdate>1991</risdate><volume>325</volume><issue>15</issue><spage>1103</spage><epage>1105</epage><pages>1103-1105</pages><issn>0028-4793</issn><eissn>1533-4406</eissn><abstract>To the Editor:
The difficulty of randomizing conventional cancer treatments has led Cassileth et al. (April 25 issue)
1
to adopt a convoluted study design that cannot, even if the major defects in its statistical analysis are rectified, provide reliable evidence as to whether the particular unconventional method studied affects survival in advanced cancer. Their comparison of conventional with unconventional treatment (the Livingston-Wheeler treatment) in 78 pairs of patients with advanced cancer was neither randomized nor large, so it may be subject to both bias and substantial random error. Hence, although it may provide useful evidence against absurdly big expectations of . . .</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Massachusetts Medical Society</pub><pmid>1891014</pmid><doi>10.1056/NEJM199110103251512</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0028-4793 |
| ispartof | The New England journal of medicine, 1991-10, Vol.325 (15), p.1103-1105 |
| issn | 0028-4793 1533-4406 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72094113 |
| source | MEDLINE; New England Journal of Medicine Current; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Complementary Therapies Humans Infant, Newborn Neoplasms - mortality Neoplasms - therapy Quality of Life Survival Rate |
| title | The Effect of Unproved Cancer Therapy in Advanced Cancer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T02%3A30%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Unproved%20Cancer%20Therapy%20in%20Advanced%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=The%20New%20England%20journal%20of%20medicine&rft.date=1991-10-10&rft.volume=325&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=1103&rft.epage=1105&rft.pages=1103-1105&rft.issn=0028-4793&rft.eissn=1533-4406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1056/NEJM199110103251512&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72094113%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72094113&rft_id=info:pmid/1891014&rfr_iscdi=true |