Cargando…

Randomized controlled trials versus rough set analysis: two competing approaches for evaluating clinical data

The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Rzepiński, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24553995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9283-7
Descripción
Sumario:The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The main purpose of the paper is to present a general idea of alternative method of evaluating empirical evidence. The method builds on data analysis that makes use of rough set theory. The first attempts to apply the method show that it is an interesting alternative to randomized controlled trials.