This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Vladimir Hachinski, MD, Dsc (Med)

Arch Neurol. 1990;47(4):445.

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

Never before have multicenter trials been so widespread, nor so contentious. Barnett points to the remarkable progress in stroke prevention, and argues that it largely flows from the results of multicenter trials. Marshall agrees that clinical trials rather than clinical impressions are the appropriate method of evaluating therapy but maintains that one of the basic tenets of a controlled trial, ie, precise definition, is seldom adhered to because of the multiple causes and clinical diversity of stroke. Marshall also questions the ability of randomization to eliminate the effects of variables that cannot be controlled or even recognized. He advocates small trials of well-defined pathophysiological categories.

Small trials are feasible and desirable in conditions that have a high mortality or a high probability of a clinically meaningful event. The much-touted first modern clinical trial of streptomycin in primary pulmonary tuberculosis may have been obviated if streptomycin had been used initially in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases, London, England.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?