PEDIATRICS Vol. 94 No. 3 September 1994, pp. A40
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content

CARE IN RCTS AND IN CONVENTIONAL PRACTICE

We should recognise that when we do not know we must say so, mean what we say, and somehow make time to understand and be understood. When secretly we think we already know what is best before we have evidence, we deceive ourselves, create ethical dilemmas where none need exist, and continue repeatedly to put millions at marginal risks which may outweigh substantial benefits for a few. In a well designed trial, randomisation to either arm is a gain, because the placebo and Hawthorne effects are real. They depend not on deception, but the promise of care in its widest sense. Participation in trials seems to ensure more real professional fulfillment of this promise than most patients get from conventional practice. Mainly for this reason, recruits consistently enjoy better outcomes than nonrespondents in all published trials, and respondents generally receive better care than non-respondents.