This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Surgery  • Neurosurgery  • Medical Ethics  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Movement Disorders  • Parkinson Disease/ Parkinsonian Disorders  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Neurol. 2005;62:1343-1344.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In this issue of the ARCHIVES, Kim et al¹ report that the vast majority of surveyed Parkinson disease (PD) clinical researchers in the United States and Canada favor the use of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in evaluating surgical interventions as therapies for PD. Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed think that sham surgery–controlled, double-blind trials are better than unblinded studies for evaluating the efficacy of neurosurgical interventions in PD. Indeed, 50% believe that relying solely on unblinded efficacy trials would be unethical because it may lead to a falsely positive result. Ninety percent felt that burr holes were justified in a sham-control group, and 22% indicated that even penetration of brain tissue in a control group is justified to obtain an unambiguous answer. It is clear that clinical researchers in North America require that surgical trials for PD be assessed in double-blind controlled trials before concluding that they are effective, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

C. Warren Olanow, MD, FRCPC

RELATED ARTICLE

Science and Ethics of Sham Surgery: A Survey of Parkinson Disease Clinical Researchers
Scott Y. H. Kim, Samuel Frank, Robert Holloway, Carol Zimmerman, Renee Wilson, and Karl Kieburtz
Arch Neurol. 2005;62(9):1357-1360.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT