Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Additional Basic Science for Clinical Medicine: II. The Limitations of Randomized Trials

FEINSTEIN, ALVAN R.·1983·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Although highly successful in investigating remedial therapy, randomized clinical trials have sometimes created rather than clarified controversy when the treatments were given for the complex problems involved in studying either the primary prevention of disease or the secondary prevention of adverse progression for an established disease. Another source of difficulty has been the inevitable conflicts created by two legitimate and justifiable but opposing policies regarding the fastidious or pragmatic goals of the trials. These problems limit the scope of clinical questions that can be answered successfully by randomized trials, but other limitations are produced by problems in logistics or ethics. Randomized trials are unfeasible for studying multiple therapeutic candidates, minor changes in therapy, "instabilities" due to rapid technologic improvements in available treatment, long-term adverse effects, studies of etiologic or other suspected "noxious" agents, and the diverse clinical roles of diagnostic technology. Consequently, despite the magnificent scientific achievements of randomized clinical trials, the foundation for a basic science of patient care will also require major attention to the events and observations that occur in the ordinary circumstances of clinical practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-544

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.7326/0003-4819-99-3-393 · DOI
  2. FREDERICKSON D, 1968, Bull NY Acad Med., 44, 985
  3. 10.1002/cpt1977224485 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90080-1 · DOI
  5. 10.1056/NEJM198010303031804 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1001/jama.1982.03330120023025 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/S0003-4975(10)61874-7 · DOI
  8. 10.1056/NEJM197709222971201 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1126/science.7244629 · doi:10.1126/science.7244629
  10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)92713-1 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(77)92713-1
  11. 10.1056/NEJM198104163041601 · doi:10.1056/nejm198104163041601
  12. 10.1097/00004836-198003000-00006 · doi:10.1097/00004836-198003000-00006
  13. FEINSTEIN A, 1967, Clinical Judgment.

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
FEINSTEIN, A. R.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1983-10-01
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
544-550
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2014712738
Cited by
253
References
2
FWCI
12.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Additional Basic Science for Clinical Medicine: II. The Limitations of Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-544
The paper
FEINSTEIN, A. R. (1983). An Additional Basic Science for Clinical Medicine: II. The Limitations of Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-544

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.