Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kontrollierte klinische Studien — eine Einführung

  • Chapter
Methodik klinischer Studien

Part of the book series: Statistik und ihre Anwendungen ((STATIST))

  • 364 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Erforschung und Entwicklung neuer Therapien in der Medizin findet in der Regel nur in kleinen Schritten statt. Bahnbrechende Erfolge in der Entwicklung innovativer Behandlungen zur Heilung bislang inkurabler Erkrankungen waren in der Vergangenheit selten und sind auch in Zukunft kaum zu erwarten. Doch auch vergleichsweise kleine Effekte neuer Therapien können klinisch relevant sein und beträchtliche Auswirkungen auf das Wohlbefinden des individuellen Patienten haben. Um die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit neuer Therapien zu belegen, ist ihre systematische Erprobung und Überprüfung in klinischen Studien erforderlich. Der erste Einsatz einer erfolgversprechenden medizinischen Behandlung am Menschen sollte daher als klinisches Experiment verstanden werden, mit dem Ziel, die Wirksamkeit der Therapie und ihre Verträglichkeit nachzuweisen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton DR, French JM, Vanderpump MPJ. Ignoring a covariate: an example of Simpson’s paradox. The American Statistician 1996; 50: 340–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. British Medical Journal 2000; 321: 255–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson K, Hartz A. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1878–1886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beral V, Hermon C, Reeves G, Peto R. Sudden fall in breast cancer death rates in England and Wales. Lancet 1995; 345: 1642–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36: 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkson J, Harrington SW, Clagett OT et al. Mortality and survival in surgically treated cancer patients of the breast. Proceedings of the Staff Meeting of the Mayo Clinic 1957; 32: 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H, Kunzler AM. Evidence of favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 1977; 297: 1091–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1887 1892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dambrosia JM, Ellenberg JH. Statistical considerations for medical data base. Biometrics 1980; 36: 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doll R. Sir Austin Bradford Hill and the progress of medical science. British Medical Journal 1992; 305: 1521–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont WD. Randomized vs. historical clinical trials: are the benefits worth the costs? American Journal of Epidemiology 1985; 122: 940–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy: 133 randomised trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Lancet 1992; 339: 1–15, 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ederer F. Jerome Cornfield’s contributions to the conduct of clinical trials. Biometrics 1982; 38 (Supplement), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ederer F. History of clinical trials. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards MJ, Gamel JW, Feuer EJ. Improvement in the prognosis of breast cancer from 1965 to 1984. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1998; 16: 1030–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis TH Jr et al. An evaluation of the 1954 Poliomyelitis vaccine trials - Summary report. American Journal of Public Health 1955; 45: l-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH. Statistics in action. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91: 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green SB. Patient heterogeneity and the need for randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1982; 3: 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of onmimetrics. Statistics in Medicine 1984; 3: 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill AB. The clinical trial. British Medical Bulletin 1951; 7: 278–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill AB. Statistical methods in clinical and preventive medicine. Edinburgh: Livingstone, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICH E8. General considerations for clinical trials. London, UK: International Conference on Harmonisation; 1997. Adopted by CPMP September 1997 (CPMP/ICH/291/95).

    Google Scholar 

  • Julious SA, Mullee MA. Confounding and Simpson’s paradox. British Medical Journal 1994; 309: 1480–1481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 1185–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown T. The modern rise of population. London: Edward Arnold, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier P. The biggest public health experiment ever: the 1954 field trial of the Salk Poliomyelitis vaccine. In: Tanur JM, Mosteller F, Kruskal WH, Lehmann EL, Link RF. Pieters RS, Rising GR (eds). Statistics: A guide to the unknown. Monterey: Wadsworth und Brooks, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier P, Pringle Smith R. Salk Vaccine. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olschewski M, Scheurlen H. Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods of Information in Medicine 1985; 24: 131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olschewski M, Schumacher M, Davis KB. Analysis of randomized and nonrandomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study design. Controlled Clinical Trials 1992; 13: 226–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peto R. Clinical trial methodology. Biomedicine Special Issue 1978; 28: 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peto R. Mortality from breast cancer in UK has decreased suddenly. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 476–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfisterer J, Kommoss F, Sauerbrei W, Baranski B, Kiechle M, Ikenberg H. DNA flow cytometry in stage IB and II cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 1996, 6: 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1907–1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reintjes R, de Boer A, van Pelt W, Mintjes-de Groot J. Simpson’s paradox: an example from hospital epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheurlen H, Olschewski M, Leibbrand D. Zur Methodologie kontrollierter klinischer Studien über die Primärbehandlung des operablen Mammakarzinoms. Strahlentherapie 1984; 160: 459–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoor C, Olschewski M, Schumacher M. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson EH. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1951; B-13: 238–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman WA. Human experimentation. A guided step into the unknown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland I. Medical Research Council Streptomycin trial. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Martin Schumacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabi Schulgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schumacher, M., Schulgen, G. (2002). Kontrollierte klinische Studien — eine Einführung. In: Methodik klinischer Studien. Statistik und ihre Anwendungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-08719-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-08719-0_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43306-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-08719-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation