To all -
The authors asked a question of therapy using an experiment (RCT). This is a therapy paper.
The prognosis questions screen cohort studies a bit better for sources of bias/confounding that are assumed resolved by randomization (and are therefore not included in the therapy questions).
The word 'prognosis' in the title should not distract. Indeed, the underlying assumption behind randomization is that if there is no treatment effect, both groups (thanks to randomization and chance) are likely to have the same prognosis. Differences in prognosis between groups (in a well-conducted RCT) can only be attributed to treatment effect differences - thus the strong inferences about treatment effects derived from RCTs.
Salud!
V
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diana Rodr> íguez Hurtado [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 1:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Regards from Peru
>
> Dear list members:
> there is a discussion about article "Effect of dietary protein restriction
> on PROGNOSIS in patients with diabetic nephropathy"
> Kidney International vol 62 (2002)
> They realized a four prospective controlled trial with randomization
> compared the effects of a low protein diet with a usual protein diet.
> A member of C.E.U said that for critical appraisal we need to use guide for
> Therapy, and others members said that we need to use guide for Prognosis.
> Who is right?
> I will be waiting with much expectative your answer.
> Thanks in advance.
> Diana Rodriguez M.D.
|