Diabetes: The Science and the Art
- 1 June 1983
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of internal medicine (1960)
- Vol. 143 (6) , 1118-1119
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1983.00350060040004
Abstract
Medicine is partly an art and partly a science. Its artistic aspects will always remain important, since medical activity encompasses human relationships between suffering and helping human beings. However, many of us ardently wish there was more science in clinical medicine for the good of our patients and the prestige of our trade. Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge is not the only reason why science so often seems absent from clinical practice. The evaluation of clinical interventions with controlled and, preferably, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the courage to accept the results of these properly designed and conducted studies (no matter how distasteful they may be) would improve the image of medicine as a science. Randomized clinical trials are particularly critical in complex situations when only circumstantial (or animal) evidence suggest that treatment A is better than treatment B, although the safety and feasibility of AvB has notThis publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Randomize in Clinical Trials?Diabetes Care, 1983
- The randomized controlled clinical trial. Scientific and ethical bases: Spodick DH: Am J Med 1982; 73: 420–425The American Journal of Medicine, 1982
- Insulin pump treatment for diabetes: unanswered questionsClinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 1982
- Long-term DiabetesA CLINICAL STUDY OF 92 PATIENTS AFTER 40 YEARSQJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 1974