Identify the discrepancies of data reported in randomized control trials (RCTs)

Reveal the large number of patients and patient types that
fail to respond optimally to the restricted number of recommended frontline
treatments published in the identified clinical practice guidelines (CPG), as
well as popular field opinion that the capacity to help PTSD patients recover,
has stalled. Draw a link between the identified needs and NFB’s ability to meet
those needs. Highlight clinicians and researchers’ treatment concerns of high
dropout rates, lack of symptom amelioration, and high rates of
re-traumatization of the victim. Also,
reveal how these recommended treatments exacerbate patient’s trauma symptoms,
produce harms because of treatments (e.g., suicidality), and expose how
clinical practice patients significantly differ from research subjects. Report
of experts in the field advocating for an integrative understanding and
multidimensional treatment approach to PTSD which includes the position of
phenomenological, neurobiological, physiological, and psychological
perspectives. Identify the discrepancies of data reported in randomized control
trials (RCTs), as well as challenge the general idea perpetuated by CPG authors
that the highest quality of knowledge comes from randomized clinical trials
(RCTs). Reveal RCT’s strict eligibility criteria, such as participants tend to
be younger, more motivated and have fewer comorbid conditions than PTSD
patients in the general population. Inform of the benefits from observational
studies and how they have provided critical information related to real-world
applicability.
11 of the desired 15 article sources have been provided, but you can add as many as needed to make the point of the request. Any new article added, please make them within the last 4 years. This is the NEXT SECTION AFTER the Governing Bodies Disection.
Thank you.