Advertisement

What the Tortoise Said to Achilles

  • George A. Diamond
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Tel: 323-462-0600; fax: 323-467-7490
    Affiliations
    Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California

    David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sanjay Kaul
    Affiliations
    Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California

    David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
    Search for articles by this author
      Practitioners and investigators often view clinical trials from very different perspectives—the former in terms of individuals and the latter in terms of groups. The following whimsical dialogue highlights the philosophical foundations of these contrasting perspectives and illustrates their potential impact on patient care and public policy. The title alludes to a piece by Lewis Carroll regarding Zeno's paradox, purportedly proving that the fleet-footed Achilles cannot outrun the plodding Tortoise in a foot race.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Rothwell P.M.
        External validity of randomized controlled trials: to whom do the results of this trial apply?.
        Lancet. 2005; 365: 82-93
        • Diamond G.A.
        • Denton T.A.
        Alternative perspectives on the biased foundations of medical technology assessment.
        Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118: 455-464
        • Califf R.M.
        • DeMets D.L.
        Principles from clinical trials relevant to clinical practice.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 106 (1172–1175): 1015-1021
        • Kaul S.
        • Diamond G.A.
        Trial and error: how to avoid commonly encountered limitations of published clinical trials.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55: 415-427
        • Bucher H.C.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Griffith L.E.
        • Walter S.D.
        The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50: 683-691
        • Noble Jr, J.H.
        Meta-analysis: methods, strengths, weaknesses and political uses.
        J Lab Clin Med. 2006; 147: 7-20
        • Diamond G.A.
        • Kaul S.
        Prior convictions: Bayesian approaches to the analysis and interpretation of clinical megatrials.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 1929-1939
        • Diamond G.A.
        • Kaul S.
        Bayesian classification of clinical practice guidelines.
        Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 1431-1435