Randomized controlled trials versus rough set analysis: Two competing approaches for evaluating clinical data

5Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The main purpose of the paper is to present a general idea of alternative method of evaluating empirical evidence. The method builds on data analysis that makes use of rough set theory. The first attempts to apply the method show that it is an interesting alternative to randomized controlled trials. © 2014 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rzepiński, T. (2014). Randomized controlled trials versus rough set analysis: Two competing approaches for evaluating clinical data. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 35(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9283-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free