Clinical Trials and Meta-Analysis
- 23 July 1992
- journal article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 327 (4) , 273-274
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199207233270411
Abstract
The factors that influence doctors' decisions to embrace a new treatment are incompletely understood. Choices are influenced by advertising, medical opinion leaders, peers, and patients, but of all the sources, the most objective are randomized clinical trials. In this issue of the Journal, Lamas and colleagues show that the publication of clinical trials can have a prompt and direct effect on physicians' prescribing practices.1 The select group of physicians whose patients were enrolled in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement trial of angiotensin-converting—enzyme inhibitors in patients who recovered from a myocardial infarction responded fairly rapidly to the published results of other . . .Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Do the Results of Randomized Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Drugs Influence Medical Practice?New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarctionJAMA, 1992
- Effect of Intravenous Streptokinase on Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1982