yes, a good point. If we consider the nature of
psychosomatic disorders then we might reasonably assume
that any intervention that has at its basis an active role
with the client, may be perceived by that client as a
useful therapeutic intervention. I hesitate to cite the
infamous non-working ECT machine widely reported many years
ago, but it does force us to consider that positive
elements, (or confounding variables depending on your
viewpoint), not always accounted for in RCTs, have
beneficial impacts on real clients.
Dave
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:00:36 -0700 "M. Carmen Meerschaert"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am quite a novice to the field of clinical research. While reading a
> study which was a double-blind RCT, I noted the conclusion that the
> experimental group did not have a significantly improved response to
> therapy over the placebo group. The conclusion, therefore, was that the
> treatment was ineffective.
>
> My question is this: Are we right to assume that a placebo-treated group
> is a true "control" population when studying a disease which is subject
> to psycho-somatic exacerbations? If this patient population's response
> to placebo is high, might this not be an unfair standard against which
> the treatment modality is measured?
----------------------
Dave Lloyd
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|