Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

Semmelweis’s methodology from the modern stand-point: intervention studies and causal ontology

Författare

Summary, in English

Semmelweis’s work predates the discovery of the power of randomization in medicine by almost a century. Although Semmelweis would not have consciously used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), some features of his material—the allocation of patients to the first and second clinics—did involve what was in fact a randomization, though this was not realised at the time. This article begins by explaining why Semmelweis’s methodology, nevertheless, did not amount to the use of a RCT. It then shows why it is descriptively and normatively interesting to compare what he did with the modern approach using RCTs. The argumentation centres on causal inferences and the contrast between Semmelweis’s causal concept and that deployed by many advocates of RCTs. It is argued that Semmelweis’s approach has implications for matters of explanation and medical practice.

Publiceringsår

2009

Språk

Engelska

Sidor

204-209

Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Volym

40

Issue

3

Dokumenttyp

Artikel i tidskrift

Förlag

Elsevier

Ämne

  • Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

Nyckelord

  • intervention study
  • randomized controlled trial
  • internal validity
  • external validity
  • cause
  • Semmelweis
  • ontology

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt

  • ISSN: 1369-8486