English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The practice of medicine relies on the patient-physician relationship, knowledge, and clinical judgment. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the least biased method for studying the effects of interventions in selected populations and are the only method to control adequately for unknown confounders. However, physicians face the limitations of RCTs on a daily basis as they treat relatively unselected populations and individual patients. We explore the benefits and limitations of RCTs for some neurologic disorders, and discuss the difficulties of predicting individualized outcomes and anticipating treatment responses in those heterogeneous conditions. Observational studies and advances in understanding neurologic diseases complement RCTs in decision-making. Considerable challenges remain for personalized medicine; for now, clinicians must rely on their ability to integrate evidence and clinical judgment.

Are randomized, blind clinical trials enough to guide individualized decisions for patients with neurologic diseases?