Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 353, Issue 9153, 20 February 1999, Pages 661-664
The Lancet

Series
Application of evidence from randomised controlled trials to general practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09103-XGet rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (31)

  • B Starfield

    Is primary care essential?

    Lancet

    (1994)
  • C Van Weel

    Primary care: political favourite or scientific discipline

    Lancet

    (1996)
  • The health benefits of smoking cessation. Public Health Service, Centres for Disease Control, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health

    (1990)
  • WW Rosser

    Advising patients about low fat diets

    Can Fam Physician

    (1993)
  • G Waddell et al.

    Systematic reviews of bed rest and advice to stay active for acute low back pain

    Br J Gen Prac

    (1997)
  • WW Rosser et al.
  • The health benefits of smoking cessation. Public Health Service, Centres for Disease Control, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health

    (1990)
  • S Dayton et al.

    A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis

    Circulation

    (1969)
  • WW Rosser et al.
  • WW Rosser

    Approach to diagnosis by primary care clinicians and specialists: is there a difference?

    J Fam Pract

    (1996)
  • H Lamberts et al.
  • C Van Weel

    Chronic diseases in general practice: the longitudinal dimension

    Eur J Gen Pract

    (1996)
  • Cited by (84)

    • Group analysis versus individual response: The inferential limits of randomized controlled trials

      2010, Contemporary Clinical Trials
      Citation Excerpt :

      He also shows how the summary results of an RCT might not even apply to most of the patients in the trial. Rosser [2] decries the fact that public health agencies and insurance companies rely on population level data to justify monetary incentives encouraging physicians to provide preventive treatment to all patients, regardless of “the patient's personal context and values” (p. 663) [2]. Van Weel and Knottnerus [3] discuss the problem of complex treatment packages that are not typically tested in standard RCTs.

    • Effect of Clinical Trials on Survival After Heart Transplantation

      2008, Transplantation Proceedings
      Citation Excerpt :

      The NCT group had a lower survival rate (80.37% vs 87.04%), a difference that was close to a significant value (P = 0.13, log-rank test) (Fig 1). The results obtained in a CT can be strictly generalized only to a population identical to that of the CT.2 Assuming this principle, patients included in CTs and those excluded from them should have similar baseline characteristics the outcome should be influenced only by the intervention performed in each trial. Results of our study show that patients included in CTs clearly have more favorable baseline conditions than those not included in CTs.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text