Im kasuistisch-empirischen Vergleich der Tumormarker, erwiesen sich die TU M2-PK-Verlaufsmessungen den etablierten Markern (CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC und NSE) überlegen.

In a casuistic empirical comparison of progressive measurements TU M2-PK outperformed the established markers (CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC, and NSE).
http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2005/2600/

... would be just another possibility here.

See examples at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2277879
"Clinical trials are frequently analysed as if they were surveys when they are in fact experiments. In particular the experimental basis of clinical trials is rarely reflected in the graphs which are used to illustrate them. Proposals are made, and illustrated by example, as to how appropriate figures may be devised, both for parallel-group designs and for crossover trials, to illustrate the experimental nature of clinical trials with ***measurements over time***."

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/10/1913
"maintaining comparability of data with a reference population
Representative data from a suitable population can be used to confirm the comparability of ***measurements over time***. This approach assumes that the distribution of biochemical variables measured in random samples drawn at different times from a large representative population will not vary substantially, although the population demographics may nevertheless vary with time (e.g., the change in population cholesterol that occurred during the MRFIT trial). The reference population we used consisted of the newly diagnosed patients entering the study each year. To recruit a control population alongside the study population, even though this would have financial, workload, and recruitment implications, is now more desirable. To ensure that there were no major potentially confounding changes in population characteristics, such as body weight, the relevant clinical and biometric data were analyzed. Data from this population for each analytical method used during the study were compared with data from the current analytical method, to determine whether there were any systematic differences between a previous assay method and the current method. Box-and-whisker plots (Fig. 2Up C) showing the median and interquartile range (box), and 10th and 90th centiles (whiskers) for each analytical method were examined and compared with the median and 95% confidence interval of the current method. Appropriate statistical tests were applied to compare each method with the current method to determine whether there were significant differences between the methods."

...würde mir als Alternative noch einfallen

evtl. auch etwas mit "follow up" ?

...to study the effectiveness of psychotherapy

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 43 mins (2008-04-29 21:17:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

link for reference: www.positum.org/method/german/wissen.htm

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 giorni (2008-05-06 20:29:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Ich halte es für wichtig, dass es in diesem Zusammenhang um Psychotherapie und eben nicht um die Wirkung von Medikamenten geht. Ich würde deswegen das Wort 'measurement' nicht benutzen. Das deutsche Wort 'Messung' entspricht in Bezug auf Medikamente in einem solchen Zusammenhang sicherlich dem englischen Wort 'measurement', in Bezug auf Therapieerfolg bekommt es aber eine andere Konnotation. Die Studie beschäftigt sich doch aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach damit, wie sich das seelische Wohlbefinden einer Person verbessert. M.E. ist in diesem Zusammenhang 'Verlaufsmessung' ein Synonym für 'klinische Studie', zumindest scheint es im Zusammenhang mit Psychotherapie so gemeint zu sein (s.d. link oben). Die klinische 'Beobachtung' eines Patienten über einen bestimmten Zeitraum... Der letzte Vorschlag, 'sequential assesments', nimmt auf diesen Sachverhalt Rücksicht, würde aber nur eine Teilbedeutung des Terminus in diesem Kontext wiedergeben (s. link).