Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on March 14, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
42/6/713    most recent
keg198v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, C.
Right arrow Articles by The Arthritis Research Campaign's Clinical Trials Committee,
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, C.
Right arrow Articles by The Arthritis Research Campaign's Clinical Trials Committee,
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Economics
Right arrow Education
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Rheumatology 2003; 42: 713-715
© 2003 British Society for Rheumatology

Editorial

The blossoming of evidence-based clinical rheumatology: The Arthritis Research Campaign's Clinical Trials Collaboration in association with the MRC Clinical Trials Unit, BSR and BOA

C. Cooper, E. Choy and The Arthritis Research Campaign's Clinical Trials Committee*

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Competing demands for scarce healthcare resources have accentuated the requirement for routine clinical practice to be evidence-based. One of the benchmarks for evidence-based medicine is the appropriately conducted randomized controlled trial (RCT). Although epidemiological studies, whether case–control or cohort in design, have contributed enormously to the generation of hypotheses and permit the controlled evaluation of therapeutic interventions, they are susceptible to biases through selection, information ascertainment and confounding. While RCTs are also susceptible to such biases, the process of randomization and of blinded evaluation of outcomes permits the closest approximation in clinical research to the conduct of a hypothesis-testing laboratory experiment. Historically, there have been several obstacles to the execution of high-quality RCTs to address important rheumatological questions. One . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
G. H. Kingsley, B. Khoshaba, C. M. Smith, E. H. Choy, and D. L. Scott
Are clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis generalizable to routine practice? A re-evaluation of trial entry criteria
Rheumatology, May 1, 2005; 44(5): 629 - 632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN APPL THROMB HEMOSTHome page
M. A. Ozturk, I. C. Haznedaroglu, M. Turgut, and H. Goker
Current Debates in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: The Acquired Antibody-Mediated Thrombophilia
Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, April 1, 2004; 10(2): 89 - 126.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
M. D. Lockshin and D. Erkan
Treatment of the Antiphospholipid Syndrome
N. Engl. J. Med., September 18, 2003; 349(12): 1177 - 1179.
[Full Text] [PDF]