Editorial
The surgical mystique and the double standard: Controlled trials of medical and surgical therapy for cardiac disease: Analysis, hypothesis, proposal

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(73)90161-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Seventy therapeutic trials reported in specialty journals during 1971 were analyzed for evidence of a controlled design to compare standards employed in evaluating treatments for cardiovascular disease. Nine of 16 qualifying medical trials were controlled. None of 49 surgical trials were controlled. The general “double standard” of acceptability for reports of surgical versus medical therapeutic trials appears to arise from fundamental professional and lay attitudes. It is proposed that medical journals require comparable standards for reporting the results of all kinds of treatment.

References (34)

  • T.C. Chalmers

    Mortality rate versus funeral rate in clinical medicine

    Gastroenterology

    (1964)
  • W.L. Proudfit

    Therapeutic procedures for angina pectoris

    Dis. Chest

    (1969)
  • M. Battezzati et al.

    Clinical evaluation of bilateral internal mammary artery ligations as treatment of coronary heart disease

    J. Cardiol.

    (1959)
  • K.L. Kayser

    Randomized controlled trials of coronary artery surgery

    Am. Heart J.

    (1972)
  • J. Cornfield

    Approaches to assessment of the efficacy of surgical revascularization

    Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med.

    (1972)
  • F.J. Ingelfinger

    The randomized clinical trial

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (1972)
  • T.C. Chalmers et al.

    Controlled studies in clinical cancer research

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (1972)

    • Cited by (0)

    ∗

    Chief, Cardiology Division, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine; Lecturer in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine.

    View full text
    Copyright © 1973 Published by Mosby, Inc.