text:
Randomized controlled trial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Flowchart of four phases (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel randomized trial of two groups, modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement[1]
A randomized controlled trial (or randomized control trial;[2] RCT) is a type of scientific (often medical) experiment which aims to reduce bias when testing a new treatment. The people participating in the trial are randomly allocated to either the group receiving the treatment under investigation or to a group receiving standard treatment (or placebo treatment) as the control. Randomization minimises selection bias and the different comparison groups allow the researchers to determine any effects of the treatment when compared with the no treatment (control) group, while other variables are kept constant. The RCT is often considered the gold standard for a clinical trial. RCTs are often used to test the efficacy or effectiveness of various types of medical intervention and may provide information about adverse effects, such as drug reactions. Random assignment of intervention is done after subjects have been assessed for eligibility and recruited, but before the intervention to be studied begins.
Random allocation in real trials is complex, but conceptually the process is like tossing a coin. After randomization, the two (or more) groups of subjects are followed in exactly the same way and the only differences between them is the care they receive. For example, in terms of procedures, tests, outpatient visits, and follow-up calls, should be those intrinsic to the treatments being compared. The most important advantage of proper randomization is that it minimizes allocation bias, balancing both known and unknown prognostic factors, in the assignment of treatments.[3]
The terms "RCT" and randomized trial are sometimes used synonymously, but the methodologically sound practice is to reserve the "RCT" name only for trials that contain control groups, in which groups receiving the experimental treatment are compared with control groups receiving no treatment (a placebo-controlled study) or a previously tested treatment (a positive-control study). The term "randomized trials" omits mention of controls and can describe studies that compare multiple treatment groups with each other (in the absence of a control group).[4] Similarly, although the "RCT" name is sometimes expanded as "randomized clinical trial" or "randomized comparative trial", the methodologically sound practice, to avoid ambiguity in the scientific literature, is to retain "control" in the definition of "RCT" and thus reserve that name only for trials that contain controls. Not all randomized clinical trials are randomized controlled trials (and some of them could never be, in cases where controls would be impractical or unethical to institute). The term randomized controlled clinical trials is a methodologically sound alternate expansion for "RCT" in RCTs that concern clinical research;[5][6][7] however, RCTs are also employed in other research areas, including many of the social sciences.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Ethics
2.1 Trial registration
3 Classifications
3.1 By study design
3.2 By outcome of interest (efficacy vs. effectiveness)
3.3 By hypothesis (superiority vs. noninferiority vs. equivalence)
4 Randomization
4.1 Procedures
4.1.1 Simple
4.1.2 Restricted
4.1.3 Adaptive
4.2 Allocation concealment
4.3 Sample size
5 Blinding
6 Analysis of data
7 Reporting of results
7.1 Relative importance and observational studies
7.2 Interpretation of statistical results
8 Advantages
9 Disadvantages
9.1 Time and Costs
9.2 Conflict of interest dangers
9.3 Ethics
10 In social science
10.1 Transport science
10.2 International development
10.3 Criminology
10.4 Education
11 See also
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links
History[edit]
The first reported clinical trial was conducted by James Lind in 1747 to identify treatment for scurvy.[8] Randomized experiments appeared in psychology, where they were introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce,[9] and in education.[10][11][12] Later, randomized experiments appeared in agriculture, due to Jerzy Neyman[13] and Ronald A. Fisher. Fisher's experimental research and his writings popularized randomized experiments.[14]
The first published RCT in medicine appeared in the 1948 paper entitled "Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis", which described a Medical Research Council investigation.[15][16][17] One of the authors of that paper was Austin Bradford Hill, who is credited as having conceived the modern RCT.[18]
By the late 20th century, RCTs were recognized as the standard method for "rational therapeutics" in medicine.[19] As of 2004, more than 150,000 RCTs were in the Cochrane Library.[18] To improve the reporting of RCTs in the medical literature, an international group of scientists and editors published Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statements in 1996, 2001 and 2010, and these have become widely accepted.[1][3] Randomization is the process of assigning trial subjects to treatment or control groups using an element of chance to determine the assignments in order to reduce the bias.
Ethics[edit]
Although the principle of clinical equipoise ("genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community... about the preferred treatment") common to clinical trials[20] has been applied to RCTs, the ethics of RCTs have special considerations. For one, it has been argued that equipoise itself is insufficient to justify RCTs.[21] For another, "collective equipoise" can conflict with a lack of personal equipoise (e.g., a personal belief that an intervention is effective).[22] Finally, Zelen's design, which has been used for some RCTs, randomizes subjects before they provide informed consent, which may be ethical for RCTs of screening and selected therapies, but is likely unethical "for most therapeutic trials."[23][24]
Although subjects almost always provide informed consent for their participation in an RCT, studies since 1982 have documented that RCT subjects may believe that they are certain to receive treatment that is best for them personally; that is, they do not understand the difference between research and treatment.[25][26] Further research is necessary to determine the prevalence of and ways to address this "therapeutic misconception".[26]
The RCT method variations may also create cultural effects that have not been well understood.[27] For example, patients with terminal illness may join trials in the hope of being cured, even when treatments are unlikely to be successful.
Trial registration[edit]
In 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced that all trials starting enrolment after July 1, 2005 must be registered prior to consideration for publication in one of the 12 member journals of the committee.[28] However, trial registration may still occur late or not at all.[29][30] Medical journals have been slow in adapting policies requiring mandatory clinical trial registration as a prerequisite for publication.[31]
Classifications[edit]
By study design[edit]
One way to classify RCTs is by study design. From most to least common in the healthcare literature, the major categories of RCT study designs are:[32]
Parallel-group – each participant is randomly assigned to a group, and all the participants in the group receive (or do not receive) an intervention.
Crossover – over time, each participant receives (or does not receive) an intervention in a random sequence.[33][34]
Cluster – pre-existing groups of participants (e.g., villages, schools) are randomly selected to receive (or not receive) an intervention.
Factorial – each participant is randomly assigned to a group that receives a particular combination of interventions or non-interventions (e.g., group 1 receives vitamin X and vitamin Y, group 2 receives vitamin X and placebo Y, group 3 receives placebo X and vitamin Y, and group 4 receives placebo X and placebo Y).
An analysis of the 616 RCTs indexed in PubMed during December 2006 found that 78% were parallel-group trials, 16% were crossover, 2% were split-body, 2% were cluster, and 2% were factorial.[32]
By outcome of interest (efficacy vs. effectiveness)[edit]
Main article: Pragmatic clinical trial
RCTs can be classified as "explanatory" or "pragmatic."[35] Explanatory RCTs test efficacy in a research setting with highly selected participants and under highly controlled conditions.[35] In contrast, pragmatic RCTs (pRCTs) test effectiveness in everyday practice with relatively unselected participants and under flexible conditions; in this way, pragmatic RCTs can "inform decisions about practice."[35]
By hypothesis (superiority vs. noninferiority vs. equivalence)[edit]
Another classification of RCTs categorizes them as "superiority trials", "noninferiority trials", and "equivalence trials", which differ in methodology and reporting.[36] Most RCTs are superiority trials, in which one intervention is hypothesized to be superior to another in a statistically significant way.[36] Some RCTs are noninferiority trials "to determine whether a new treatment is no worse than a reference treatment."[36] Other RCTs are equivalence trials in which the hypothesis is that two interventions are indistinguishable from each other.[36]
Randomization[edit]
The advantages of proper randomization in RCTs include:[37]
"It eliminates bias in treatment assignment," specifically selection bias and confounding.
"It facilitates blinding (masking) of the identity of treatments from investigators, participants, and assessors."
"It permits the use of probability theory to express the likelihood that any difference in outcome between treatment groups merely indicates chance."
There are two processes involved in randomizing patients to different interventions. First is choosing a randomization procedure to generate an unpredictable sequence of allocations; this may be a simple random assignment of patients to any of the groups at equal probabilities, may be "restricted", or may be "adaptive." A second and more practical issue is allocation concealment, which refers to the stringent precautions taken to ensure that the group assignment of patients are not revealed prior to definitively allocating them to their respective groups. Non-random "systematic" methods of group assignment, such as alternating subjects between one group and the other, can cause "limitless contamination possibilities" and can cause a breach of allocation concealment.[38]
However empirical evidence that adequate randomization changes outcomes relative to inadequate randomization has been difficult to detect.[39]
Procedures[edit]
The treatment allocation is the desired proportion of patients in each treatment arm.
An ideal randomization procedure would achieve the following goals:[40]
Maximize statistical power, especially in subgroup analyses. Generally, equal group sizes maximize statistical power, however, unequal groups sizes maybe more powerful for some analyses (e.g., multiple comparisons of placebo versus several doses using Dunnett’s procedure[41] ), and are sometimes desired for non-analytic reasons (e.g., patients maybe more motivated to enroll if there is a higher chance of getting the test treatment, or regulatory agencies may require a minimum number of patients exposed to treatment).[42]
Minimize selection bias. This may occur if investigators can consciously or unconsciously preferentially enroll patients between treatment arms. A good randomization procedure will be unpredictable so that investigators cannot guess the next subject's group assignment based on prior treatment assignments. The risk of selection bias is highest when previous treatment assignments are known (as in unblinded studies) or can be guessed (perhaps if a drug has distinctive side effects).
Minimize allocation bias (or confounding). This may occur when covariates that affect the outcome are not equally distributed between treatment groups, and the treatment effect is confounded with the effect of the covariates (i.e., an "accidental bias"[37][43]). If the randomization procedure causes an imbalance in covariates related to the outcome across groups, estimates of effect may be biased if not adjusted for the covariates (which may be unmeasured and therefore impossible to adjust for).
However, no single randomization procedure meets those goals in every circumstance, so researchers must select a procedure for a given study based on its advantages and disadvantages.
Simple[edit]
This is a commonly used and intuitive procedure, similar to "repeated fair coin-tossing."[37] Also known as "complete" or "unrestricted" randomization, it is robust against both selection and accidental biases. However, its main drawback is the possibility of imbalanced group sizes in small RCTs. It is therefore recommended only for RCTs with over 200 subjects.[44]
Restricted[edit]
To balance group sizes in smaller RCTs, some form of "restricted" randomization is recommended.[44] The major types of restricted randomization used in RCTs are:
Permuted-block randomization or blocked randomization: a "block size" and "allocation ratio" (number of subjects in one group versus the other group) are specified, and subjects are allocated randomly within each block.[38] For example, a block size of 6 and an allocation ratio of 2:1 would lead to random assignment of 4 subjects to one group and 2 to the other. This type of randomization can be combined with "stratified randomization", for example by center in a multicenter trial, to "ensure good balance of participant characteristics in each group."[3] A special case of permuted-block randomization is random allocation, in which the entire sample is treated as one block.[38] The major disadvantage of permuted-block randomization is that even if the block sizes are large and randomly varied, the procedure can lead to selection bias.[40] Another disadvantage is that "proper" analysis of data from permuted-block-randomized RCTs requires stratification by blocks.[44]
Adaptive biased-coin randomization methods (of which urn randomization is the most widely known type): In these relatively uncommon methods, the probability of being assigned to a group decreases if the group is overrepresented and increases if the group is underrepresented.[38] The methods are thought to be less affected by selection bias than permuted-block randomization.[44]
Adaptive[edit]
At least two types of "adaptive" randomization procedures have been used in RCTs, but much less frequently than simple or restricted randomization:
Covariate-adaptive randomization, of which one type is minimization: The probability of being assigned to a group varies in order to minimize "covariate imbalance."[44] Minimization is reported to have "supporters and detractors"[38] because only the first subject's group assignment is truly chosen at random, the method does not necessarily eliminate bias on unknown factors.[3]
Response-adaptive randomization, also known as outcome-adaptive randomization: The probability of being assigned to a group increases if the responses of the prior patients in the group were favorable.[44] Although arguments have been made that this approach is more ethical than other types of randomization when the probability that a treatment is effective or ineffective increases during the course of an RCT, ethicists have not yet studied the approach in detail.[45]
Allocation concealment[edit]
"Allocation concealment" (defined as "the procedure for protecting the randomization process so that the treatment to be allocated is not known before the patient is entered into the study") is important in RCTs.[46] In practice, clinical investigators in RCTs often find it difficult to maintain impartiality. Stories abound of investigators holding up sealed envelopes to lights or ransacking offices to determine group assignments in order to dictate the assignment of their next patient.[38] Such practices introduce selection bias and confounders (both of which should be minimized by randomization), thereby possibly distorting the results of the study.[38] Adequate allocation concealment should defeat patients and investigators from discovering treatment allocation once a study is underway and after the study has concluded. Treatment related side-effects or adverse events may be specific enough to reveal allocation to investigators or patients thereby introducing bias or influencing any subjective parameters collected by investigators or requested from subjects.
Some standard methods of ensuring allocation concealment include sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE); sequentially numbered containers; pharmacy controlled randomization; and central randomization.[38] It is recommended that allocation concealment methods be included in an RCT's protocol, and that the allocation concealment methods should be reported in detail in a publication of an RCT's results; however, a 2005 study determined that most RCTs have unclear allocation concealment in their protocols, in their publications, or both.[47] On the other hand, a 2008 study of 146 meta-analyses concluded that the results of RCTs with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the RCTs' outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective.[48]
Sample size[edit]
Main article: Sample size determination
The number of treatment units (subjects or groups of subjects) assigned to control and treatment groups, affects an RCT's reliability. If the effect of the treatment is small, the number of treatment units in either group may be insufficient for rejecting the null hypothesis in the respective statistical test. The failure to reject the null hypothesis would imply that the treatment shows no statistically significant effect on the treated in a given test. But as the sample size increases, the same RCT may be able to demonstrate a significant effect of the treatment, even if this effect is small.[49]
Blinding[edit]
An RCT may be blinded, (also called "masked") by "procedures that prevent study participants, caregivers, or outcome assessors from knowing which intervention was received."[48] Unlike allocation concealment, blinding is sometimes inappropriate or impossible to perform in an RCT; for example, if an RCT involves a treatment in which active participation of the patient is necessary (e.g., physical therapy), participants cannot be blinded to the intervention.
Traditionally, blinded RCTs have been classified as "single-blind", "double-blind", or "triple-blind"; however, in 2001 and 2006 two studies showed that these terms have different meanings for different people.[50][51] The 2010 CONSORT Statement specifies that authors and editors should not use the terms "single-blind", "double-blind", and "triple-blind"; instead, reports of blinded RCT should discuss "If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care providers, those assessing outcomes) and how."[3]
RCTs without blinding are referred to as "unblinded",[52] "open",[53] or (if the intervention is a medication) "open-label".[54] In 2008 a study concluded that the results of unblinded RCTs tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the RCTs' outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective;[48] for example, in an RCT of treatments for multiple sclerosis, unblinded neurologists (but not the blinded neurologists) felt that the treatments were beneficial.[55] In pragmatic RCTs, although the participants and providers are often unblinded, it is "still desirable and often possible to blind the assessor or obtain an objective source of data for evaluation of outcomes."[35]
Analysis of data[edit]
The types of statistical methods used in RCTs depend on the characteristics of the data and include:
For dichotomous (binary) outcome data, logistic regression (e.g., to predict sustained virological response after receipt of peginterferon alfa-2a for hepatitis C[56]) and other methods can be used.
For continuous outcome data, analysis of covariance (e.g., for changes in blood lipid levels after receipt of atorvastatin after acute coronary syndrome[57]) tests the effects of predictor variables.
For time-to-event outcome data that may be censored, survival analysis (e.g., Kaplan–Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models for time to coronary heart disease after receipt of hormone replacement therapy in menopause[58]) is appropriate.
Regardless of the statistical methods used, important considerations in the analysis of RCT data include:
Whether an RCT should be stopped early due to interim results. For example, RCTs may be stopped early if an intervention produces "larger than expected benefit or harm", or if "investigators find evidence of no important difference between experimental and control interventions."[3]
The extent to which the groups can be analyzed exactly as they existed upon randomization (i.e., whether a so-called "intention-to-treat analysis" is used). A "pure" intention-to-treat analysis is "possible only when complete outcome data are available" for all randomized subjects;[59] when some outcome data are missing, options include analyzing only cases with known outcomes and using imputed data.[3] Nevertheless, the more that analyses can include all participants in the groups to which they were randomized, the less bias that an RCT will be subject to.[3]
Whether subgroup analysis should be performed. These are "often discouraged" because multiple comparisons may produce false positive findings that cannot be confirmed by other studies.[3]
Reporting of results[edit]
The CONSORT 2010 Statement is "an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs."[60] The CONSORT 2010 checklist contains 25 items (many with sub-items) focusing on "individually randomised, two group, parallel trials" which are the most common type of RCT.[1]
For other RCT study designs, "CONSORT extensions" have been published, some examples are:
Consort 2010 Statement: Extension to Cluster Randomised Trials[61]
Consort 2010 Statement: Non-Pharmacologic Treatment Interventions[62][63]
Relative importance and observational studies[edit]
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 found that observational studies and RCTs overall produced similar results.[64][65] The authors of the 2000 findings questioned the belief that "observational studies should not be used for defining evidence-based medical care" and that RCTs' results are "evidence of the highest grade."[64][65] However, a 2001 study published in Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "discrepancies beyond chance do occur and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common" between observational studies and RCTs.[66]
Two other lines of reasoning question RCTs' contribution to scientific knowledge beyond other types of studies:
If study designs are ranked by their potential for new discoveries, then anecdotal evidence would be at the top of the list, followed by observational studies, followed by RCTs.[67]
RCTs may be unnecessary for treatments that have dramatic and rapid effects relative to the expected stable or progressively worse natural course of the condition treated.[68][69] One example is combination chemotherapy including cisplatin for metastatic testicular cancer, which increased the cure rate from 5% to 60% in a 1977 non-randomized study.[69][70]
Interpretation of statistical results[edit]
Like all statistical methods, RCTs are subject to both type I ("false positive") and type II ("false negative") statistical errors. Regarding Type I errors, a typical RCT will use 0.05 (i.e., 1 in 20) as the probability that the RCT will falsely find two equally effective treatments significantly different.[71] Regarding Type II errors, despite the publication of a 1978 paper noting that the sample sizes of many "negative" RCTs were too small to make definitive conclusions about the negative results,[72] by 2005-2006 a sizeable proportion of RCTs still had inaccurate or incompletely reported sample size calculations.[73]
Advantages[edit]
RCTs are considered to be the most reliable form of scientific evidence in the hierarchy of evidence that influences healthcare policy and practice because RCTs reduce spurious causality and bias. Results of RCTs may be combined in systematic reviews which are increasingly being used in the conduct of evidence-based practice. Some examples of scientific organizations' considering RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs to be the highest-quality evidence available are:
As of 1998, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia designated "Level I" evidence as that "obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomised controlled trials" and "Level II" evidence as that "obtained from at least one properly designed randomised controlled trial."[74]
Since at least 2001, in making clinical practice guideline recommendations the United States Preventive Services Task Force has considered both a study's design and its internal validity as indicators of its quality.[75] It has recognized "evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial" with good internal validity (i.e., a rating of "I-good") as the highest quality evidence available to it.[75]
The GRADE Working Group concluded in 2008 that "randomised trials without important limitations constitute high quality evidence."[76]
For issues involving "Therapy/Prevention, Aetiology/Harm", the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine as of 2011 defined "Level 1a" evidence as a systematic review of RCTs that are consistent with each other, and "Level 1b" evidence as an "individual RCT (with narrow Confidence Interval)."[77]
Notable RCTs with unexpected results that contributed to changes in clinical practice include:
After Food and Drug Administration approval, the antiarrhythmic agents flecainide and encainide came to market in 1986 and 1987 respectively.[78] The non-randomized studies concerning the drugs were characterized as "glowing",[79] and their sales increased to a combined total of approximately 165,000 prescriptions per month in early 1989.[78] In that year, however, a preliminary report of an RCT concluded that the two drugs increased mortality.[80] Sales of the drugs then decreased.[78]
Prior to 2002, based on observational studies, it was routine for physicians to prescribe hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women to prevent myocardial infarction.[79] In 2002 and 2004, however, published RCTs from the Women's Health Initiative claimed that women taking hormone replacement therapy with estrogen plus progestin had a higher rate of myocardial infarctions than women on a placebo, and that estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy caused no reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease.[58][81] Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the observational studies and the RCTs involved differences in methodology, in the hormone regimens used, and in the populations studied.[82][83] The use of hormone replacement therapy decreased after publication of the RCTs.[84]
Disadvantages[edit]
Many papers discuss the disadvantages of RCTs.[68][85][86] Among the most frequently cited drawbacks are:
Time and Costs[edit]
RCTs can be expensive;[86] one study found 28 Phase III RCTs funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke prior to 2000 with a total cost of US$335 million,[87] for a mean cost of US$12 million per RCT. Nevertheless, the return on investment of RCTs may be high, in that the same study projected that the 28 RCTs produced a "net benefit to society at 10-years" of 46 times the cost of the trials program, based on evaluating a quality-adjusted life year as equal to the prevailing mean per capita gross domestic product.[87]
The conduct of an RCT takes several years until being published, thus data is restricted from the medical community for long years and may be of less relevance at time of publication.[88]
It is costly to maintain RCTs for the years or decades that would be ideal for evaluating some interventions.[68][86]
Interventions to prevent events that occur only infrequently (e.g., sudden infant death syndrome) and uncommon adverse outcomes (e.g., a rare side effect of a drug) would require RCTs with extremely large sample sizes and may therefore best be assessed by observational studies.[68]
Due to the costs of running RCTs, these usually only inspect one variable or very few variables, rarely reflecting the full picture of a complicated medical situation; whereas the case report, for example, can detail many aspects of the patient’s medical situation (e.g. patient history, physical examination, diagnosis, psychosocial aspects, follow up).[88]
Conflict of interest dangers[edit]
A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical meta-analyses reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interests in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses included 11 from general medicine journals; 15 from specialty medicine journals, and 3 from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of these, 318 RCTs reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 RCTs reported author conflict of interest disclosures, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. The information was, however, seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported RCT funding sources and none reported RCT author-industry ties. The authors concluded “without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers’ understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised.”[89]
Some RCTs are fully or partly funded by the health care industry (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry) as opposed to government, nonprofit, or other sources. A systematic review published in 2003 found four 1986-2002 articles comparing industry-sponsored and nonindustry-sponsored RCTs, and in all the articles there was a correlation of industry sponsorship and positive study outcome.[90] A 2004 study of 1999-2001 RCTs published in leading medical and surgical journals determined that industry-funded RCTs "are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings."[91] These results have been mirrored in trials in surgery, where although industry funding did not affect the rate of trial discontinuation it was however associated with a lower odds of publication for completed trials [92]. One possible reason for the pro-industry results in industry-funded published RCTs is publication bias.[91] Other authors have cited the differing goals of academic and industry sponsored research as contributing to the difference. Commercial sponsors may be more focused on performing trials of drugs that have already shown promise in early stage trials, and on replicating previous positive results to fulfill regulatory requirements for drug approval.[93]
Ethics[edit]
If a 'disruptive' innovation in medical (or other) technology is developed, it may be difficult to test this ethically in an RCT if it becomes 'obvious' that the control subjects have poorer outcomes — either due to other foregoing testing, or within the initial phase of the RCT itself. Ethically it may be necessary to abort the RCT prematurely, and getting ethics approval (and patient agreement) to withhold the innovation from the control group in future RCT's may not be feasible.
Historical control trials (HCT) exploit the data of previous RCTs to reduce the sample size; however, these approaches are controversial in the scientific community and must be handled with care.[94]
In social science[edit]
Due to the recent emergence of RCTs in social science, the use of RCTs in social sciences is a contested issue. Some writers from a medical or health background have argued that existing research in a range of social science disciplines lacks rigour, and should be improved by greater use of randomized control trials.
Transport science[edit]
Researchers in transport science argue that public spending on programmes such as school travel plans could not be justified unless their efficacy is demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.[95] Graham-Rowe and colleagues[96] reviewed 77 evaluations of transport interventions found in the literature, categorising them into 5 "quality levels". They concluded that most of the studies were of low quality and advocated the use of randomized controlled trials wherever possible in future transport research.
Melia[97] took issue with these conclusions, arguing that claims about the advantages of RCTs, in establishing causality and avoiding bias, have been exaggerated. He proposed the following 8 criteria for the use of RCTs in contexts where interventions must change human behaviour to be effective:
The intervention:
Has not been applied to all members of a unique group of people (e.g. the population of a whole country, all employees of a unique organisation etc.)
Is applied in a context or setting similar to that which applies to the control group
Can be isolated from other activities – and the purpose of the study is to assess this isolated effect
Has a short timescale between its implementation and maturity of its effects
And the causal mechanisms:
Are either known to the researchers, or else all possible alternatives can be tested
Do not involve significant feedback mechanisms between the intervention group and external environments
Have a stable and predictable relationship to exogenous factors
Would act in the same way if the control group and intervention group were reversed
International development[edit]
RCTs are currently being used by a number of international development experts to measure the impact of development interventions worldwide. Development economists at research organizations including Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)[98][99][100] and Innovations for Poverty Action[101] have used RCTs to measure the effectiveness of poverty, health, and education programs in the developing world. While RCTs can be useful in policy evaluation, it is necessary to exercise care in interpreting the results in social science settings. For example, interventions can inadvertently induce socioeconomic and behavioral changes that can confound the relationships (Bhargava, 2008).
For some development economists, the main benefit to using RCTs compared to other research methods is that randomization guards against selection bias, a problem present in many current studies of development policy. In one notable example of a cluster RCT in the field of development economics, Olken (2007) randomized 608 villages in Indonesia in which roads were about to be built into six groups (no audit vs. audit, and no invitations to accountability meetings vs. invitations to accountability meetings vs. invitations to accountability meetings along with anonymous comment forms).[102] After estimating "missing expenditures" (a measure of corruption), Olken concluded that government audits were more effective than "increasing grassroots participation in monitoring" in reducing corruption.[102] Overall, it is important in social sciences to account for the intended as well as the unintended consequences of interventions for policy evaluations.
Criminology[edit]
A 2005 review found 83 randomized experiments in criminology published in 1982-2004, compared with only 35 published in 1957-1981.[103] The authors classified the studies they found into five categories: "policing", "prevention", "corrections", "court", and "community".[103] Focusing only on offending behavior programs, Hollin (2008) argued that RCTs may be difficult to implement (e.g., if an RCT required "passing sentences that would randomly assign offenders to programmes") and therefore that experiments with quasi-experimental design are still necessary.[104]
Education[edit]
RCTs have been used in evaluating a number of educational interventions. For example, a 2009 study randomized 260 elementary school teachers' classrooms to receive or not receive a program of behavioral screening, classroom intervention, and parent training, and then measured the behavioral and academic performance of their students.[105] Another 2009 study randomized classrooms for 678 first-grade children to receive a classroom-centered intervention, a parent-centered intervention, or no intervention, and then followed their academic outcomes through age 19.[106]
Mock randomised controlled trials, or simulations using confectionery, can conducted in the classroom to teach students and health professionals the principles of RCT design and critical appraisal.[107]
See also[edit]
Drug development
Hypothesis testing
Impact evaluation
Jadad scale
Statistical inference
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c Schulz KF, Altman DG, ((Moher D; for the CONSORT Group)) (2010). "CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials". Br Med J. 340: c332. PMC 2844940  . PMID 20332509. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A (1981). "A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial". Controlled Clinical Trials. 2 (1): 31–49. PMID 7261638. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010). "CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials". Br Med J. 340: c869. PMC 2844943  . PMID 20332511. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.
Jump up ^ Ranjith G (2005). "Interferon-α-induced depression: when a randomized trial is not a randomized controlled trial". Psychother Psychosom. 74 (6): 387. PMID 16244516. doi:10.1159/000087787.
Jump up ^ Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith PG (1976). "Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design". Br J Cancer. 34 (6): 585–612. PMC 2025229  . PMID 795448. doi:10.1038/bjc.1976.220.
Jump up ^ Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith PG (1977). "Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples". Br J Cancer. 35 (1): 1–39. PMC 2025310  . PMID 831755. doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1.
Jump up ^ Wollert KC, Meyer GP, Lotz J, Ringes-Lichtenberg S, Lippolt P, Breidenbach C, Fichtner S, Korte T, Hornig B, Messinger D, Arseniev L, Hertenstein B, Ganser A, Drexler H (2004). "Intracoronary autologous bone-marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST randomised controlled clinical trial". Lancet. 364 (9429): 141–8. PMID 15246726. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16626-9.
Jump up ^ Dunn PM (January 1997). "James Lind (1716-94) of Edinburgh and the treatment of scurvy" (PDF). Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 76: F64–5. PMC 1720613  . PMID 9059193. doi:10.1136/fn.76.1.f64.
Jump up ^ Charles Sanders Peirce and Joseph Jastrow (1885). "On Small Differences in Sensation". Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. 3: 73–83. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Peirce/small-diffs.htm
Jump up ^ Hacking, Ian (September 1988). "Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design". Isis. A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment. 79 (3): 427–451. JSTOR 234674. MR 1013489. doi:10.1086/354775.
Jump up ^ Stephen M. Stigler (November 1992). "A Historical View of Statistical Concepts in Psychology and Educational Research". American Journal of Education. 101 (1): 60–70. doi:10.1086/444032.
Jump up ^ Trudy Dehue (December 1997). "Deception, Efficiency, and Random Groups: Psychology and the Gradual Origination of the Random Group Design". Isis. 88 (4): 653–673. PMID 9519574. doi:10.1086/383850.
Jump up ^ Neyman, Jerzy. 1923 [1990]. "On the Application of Probability Theory to AgriculturalExperiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9." Statistical Science 5 (4): 465–472. Trans. Dorota M. Dabrowska and Terence P. Speed.
Jump up ^ According to Conniffe (1991, p. 87),
Ronald A. Fisher was "interested in application and in the popularization of statistical methods and his early book Statistical Methods for Research Workers, published in 1925, went through many editions and motivated and influenced the practical use of statistics in many fields of study. His Design of Experiments (1935) [promoted] statistical technique and application. In that book he emphasized examples and how to design experiments systematically from a statistical point of view. The mathematical justification of the methods described was not stressed and, indeed, proofs were often barely sketched or omitted altogether ..., a fact which led H. B. Mann to fill the gaps with a rigorous mathematical treatment in his well known treatise, Mann (1949)."
Page 87: Conniffe, Denis (1990–1991). "R. A. Fisher and the development of statistics—a view in his centenary year". Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. XXVI (3). Dublin: Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. pp. 55–108. ISSN 0081-4776.
Mann, H. B. (1949). Analysis and design of experiments: Analysis of variance and analysis of variance designs. New York, N. Y.: Dover Publications, Inc. pp. x+195. MR 32177.
Jump up ^ Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee (1948). "Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. A Medical Research Council investigation". Br Med J. 2 (4582): 769–82. PMC 2091872  . PMID 18890300. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4582.769.
Jump up ^ Brown D (1998-11-02). "Landmark study made research resistant to bias". Washington Post.
Jump up ^ Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H (2006). "Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery". Ann Surg. 244 (5): 668–76. PMC 1856609  . PMID 17060757. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000225356.04304.bc.
^ Jump up to: a b Stolberg HO, Norman G, Trop I (2004). "Randomized controlled trials". Am J Roentgenol. 183 (6): 1539–44. PMID 15547188. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831539.
Jump up ^ Meldrum ML (2000). "A brief history of the randomized controlled trial. From oranges and lemons to the gold standard". Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 14 (4): 745–60, vii. PMID 10949771. doi:10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70309-9.
Jump up ^ Freedman B (1987). "Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research". N Engl J Med. 317 (3): 141–5. PMID 3600702. doi:10.1056/NEJM198707163170304.
Jump up ^ Gifford F (1995). "Community-equipoise and the ethics of randomized clinical trials". Bioethics. 9 (2): 127–48. PMID 11653056. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00306.x.
Jump up ^ Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Hewison J (1998). "The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals". Br Med J. 317 (7167): 1209–12. PMC 1114158  . PMID 9794861. doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1209.
Jump up ^ Zelen M (1979). "A new design for randomized clinical trials". N Engl J Med. 300 (22): 1242–5. PMID 431682. doi:10.1056/NEJM197905313002203.
Jump up ^ Torgerson DJ, Roland M (1998). "What is Zelen's design?". Br Med J. 316 (7131): 606. PMC 1112637  . PMID 9518917. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7131.606.
Jump up ^ Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C (1982). "The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research". Int J Law Psychiatry. 5 (3–4): 319–29. PMID 6135666. doi:10.1016/0160-2527(82)90026-7.
^ Jump up to: a b Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, Easter MM, Grady C, Joffe S, Kass N, King NM, Lidz CW, Miller FG, Nelson DK, Peppercorn J, Rothschild BB, Sankar P, Wilfond BS, Zimmer CR (2007). "Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception". PLoS Med. 4 (11): e324. PMC 2082641  . PMID 18044980. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040324.
Jump up ^ Jain SL (2010). "The mortality effect: counting the dead in the cancer trial". Public Culture. 21 (1): 89–117. doi:10.1215/08992363-2009-017.
Jump up ^ De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. (September 2004). "Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors". The New England Journal of Medicine. 351 (12): 1250–1. PMID 15356289. doi:10.1056/NEJMe048225.
Jump up ^ Law MR, Kawasumi Y, Morgan SG (2011). "Despite law, fewer than one in eight completed studies of drugs and biologics are reported on time on ClinicalTrials.gov.". Health Aff (Millwood). 30 (12): 2338–45. PMID 22147862. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0172.
Jump up ^ Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P (2009). "Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.". JAMA. 302 (9): 977–84. PMID 19724045. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1242.
Jump up ^ Bhaumik, S (Mar 2013). "Editorial policies of MEDLINE indexed Indian journals on clinical trial registration.". Indian Pediatr. 50 (3): 339–40. PMID 23680610. doi:10.1007/s13312-013-0092-2.
^ Jump up to: a b Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG (2010). "The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed". BMJ. 340: c723. PMC 2844941  . PMID 20332510. doi:10.1136/bmj.c723.
Jump up ^ Jones, Byron; Kenward, Michael G. (2003). Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials (Second ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
Jump up ^ Vonesh, Edward F.; Chinchilli, Vernon G. (1997). "Crossover Experiments". Linear and Nonlinear Models for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements. London: Chapman and Hall. pp. 111–202.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D; CONSORT group; Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) group (2008). "Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement". BMJ. 337: a2390. PMC 3266844  . PMID 19001484. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2390. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b c d Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ; CONSORT Group (2006). "Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement". JAMA. 295 (10): 1152–60. PMID 16522836. doi:10.1001/jama.295.10.1152. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b c Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002). "Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice" (PDF). Lancet. 359 (9305): 515–9. PMID 11853818. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07683-3.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002). "Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering" (PDF). Lancet. 359 (9306): 614–8. PMID 11867132. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4.
Jump up ^ Howick J, Mebius A (2014). "In search of justification for the unpredictability paradox". Trials. 15: 480. PMC 4295227  . PMID 25490908. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-480.
^ Jump up to: a b Lachin JM (1988). "Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials". Controlled Clinical Trials. 9 (4): 289–311. PMID 3060315. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(88)90045-1.
Jump up ^ Rosenberger, James. "STAT 503 - Design of Experiments". Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved 24 September 2012.
Jump up ^ Avins, "A L" (1998). ""Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomized clinical trials".". J Med Ethics. 24 (6): 401–408. doi:10.1136/jme.24.6.401.
Jump up ^ Buyse ME (1989). "Analysis of clinical trial outcomes: some comments on subgroup analyses". Controlled Clinical Trials. 10 (4 Suppl): 187S–194S. PMID 2605967. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90057-3.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ (1988). "Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations". Controlled Clinical Trials. 9 (4): 365–74. PMID 3203526. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(88)90049-9.
Jump up ^ Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (1993). "The use of response-adaptive designs in clinical trials". Controlled Clinical Trials. 14 (6): 471–84. PMID 8119063. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(93)90028-C.
Jump up ^ Forder PM, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2005). "Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss". Med J Aust. 182 (2): 87–9. PMID 15651970.
Jump up ^ Pildal J, Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC (2005). "Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study". BMJ. 330 (7499): 1049. PMC 557221  . PMID 15817527. doi:10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F.
^ Jump up to: a b c Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJ, Sterne JA (2008). "Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study". BMJ. 336 (7644): 601–5. PMC 2267990  . PMID 18316340. doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD.
Jump up ^ Glennerster, Rachel; Kudzai Takavarasha (2013). Running randomized evaluations: a practical guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691159249.
Jump up ^ Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, Montori VM, Bhandari M, Guyatt GH (2001). "Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials". J Am Med Assoc. 285 (15): 2000–3. PMID 11308438. doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.2000.
Jump up ^ Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A (2006). "Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors". Clin Trials. 3 (4): 360–5. PMID 17060210. doi:10.1177/1740774506069153.
Jump up ^ Marson AG, Al-Kharusi AM, Alwaidh M, Appleton R, Baker GA, Chadwick DW, et al. (2007). "The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial". Lancet. 369 (9566): 1016–26. PMC 2039891  . PMID 17382828. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60461-9.
Jump up ^ Chan R, Hemeryck L, O'Regan M, Clancy L, Feely J (1995). "Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for community acquired lower respiratory tract infection in a general hospital: open, randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 310 (6991): 1360–2. PMC 2549744  . PMID 7787537. doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6991.1360.
Jump up ^ Fukase K, Kato M, Kikuchi S, Inoue K, Uemura N, Okamoto S, Terao S, Amagai K, Hayashi S, Asaka M; Japan Gast Study Group (2008). "Effect of eradication of Helicobacter pylori on incidence of metachronous gastric carcinoma after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial". Lancet. 372 (9636): 392–7. PMID 18675689. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61159-9. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Noseworthy JH, Ebers GC, Vandervoort MK, Farquhar RE, Yetisir E, Roberts R (1994). "The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial". Neurology. 44 (1): 16–20. PMID 8290055. doi:10.1212/wnl.44.1.16.
Jump up ^ Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman M, Reindollar R, Goodman ZD, Koury K, Ling M, Albrecht JK (2001). "Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial". Lancet. 358 (9286): 958–65. PMID 11583749. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06102-5.
Jump up ^ Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD, Ganz P, Oliver MF, Waters D, Zeiher A, Chaitman BR, Leslie S, Stern T; Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) Study Investigators (2001). "Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial". J Am Med Assoc. 285 (13): 1711–8. PMID 11277825. doi:10.1001/jama.285.13.1711. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene J; Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002). "Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial". J Am Med Assoc. 288 (3): 321–33. PMID 12117397. doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Hollis S, Campbell F (1999). "What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials". Br Med J. 319 (7211): 670–4. PMC 28218  . PMID 10480822. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670.
Jump up ^ CONSORT Group. "Welcome to the CONSORT statement Website". Retrieved 2010-03-29.
Jump up ^ Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG (2012). "Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials". BMJ. 345 (e5661). PMID 22951546. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661.
Jump up ^ Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz K, Ravaud P (2008). "Extending the CONSORT Statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration". Annals of Internal Medicine. 148 (4): 295–309. PMID 18283207. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.
Jump up ^ Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz K, Ravaud P (2008). "Methods and Processes of the CONSORT Group: Example of an Extension for Trials Assessing Nonpharmacologic Treatments". Annals of Internal Medicine. 148 (4): W60–6. PMID 18283201. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008-w1.
^ Jump up to: a b Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000). "A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials". N Engl J Med. 342 (25): 1878–86. PMID 10861324. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422506.
^ Jump up to: a b Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000). "Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs". N Engl J Med. 342 (25): 1887–92. PMC 1557642  . PMID 10861325. doi:10.1056/NEJM200006223422507.
Jump up ^ Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001). "Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies". J Am Med Assoc. 286 (7): 821–30. PMID 11497536. doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821.
Jump up ^ Vandenbroucke JP (2008). "Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science". PLoS Med. 5 (3): e67. PMC 2265762  . PMID 18336067. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050067.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Black N (1996). "Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care". BMJ. 312 (7040): 1215–8. PMC 2350940  . PMID 8634569. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215.
^ Jump up to: a b Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P (2007). "When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise". Br Med J. 334 (7589): 349–51. PMC 1800999  . PMID 17303884. doi:10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68.
Jump up ^ Einhorn LH (2002). "Curing metastatic testicular cancer". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 99 (7): 4592–5. PMC 123692  . PMID 11904381. doi:10.1073/pnas.072067999.
Jump up ^ Wittes J (2002). "Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials". Epidemiol Rev. 24 (1): 39–53. PMID 12119854. doi:10.1093/epirev/24.1.39.
Jump up ^ Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR (1978). "The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials". N Engl J Med. 299 (13): 690–4. PMID 355881. doi:10.1056/NEJM197809282991304.
Jump up ^ Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P (2009-05-12). "Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review". Br Med J. 338: b1732. PMC 2680945  . PMID 19435763. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1732.
Jump up ^ National Health and Medical Research Council (1998-11-16). A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (PDF). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. p. 56. ISBN 1-86496-048-5. Retrieved 2010-03-28.
^ Jump up to: a b Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D; Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force (2001). "Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process" (PDF). Am J Prev Med. 20 (3 Suppl): 21–35. PMID 11306229. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00261-6. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group (2008). "What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?". BMJ. 336 (7651): 995–8. PMC 2364804  . PMID 18456631. doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (2011-09-16). "Levels of evidence". Retrieved 2012-02-15.
^ Jump up to: a b c Anderson JL, Pratt CM, Waldo AL, Karagounis LA (1997). "Impact of the Food and Drug Administration approval of flecainide and encainide on coronary artery disease mortality: putting "Deadly Medicine" to the test". Am J Cardiol. 79 (1): 43–7. PMID 9024734. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00673-X.
^ Jump up to: a b Rubin R (2006-10-16). "In medicine, evidence can be confusing - deluged with studies, doctors try to sort out what works, what doesn't". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
Jump up ^ "Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators". N Engl J Med. 321 (6): 406–12. 1989. PMID 2473403. doi:10.1056/NEJM198908103210629.
Jump up ^ Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, et al. (2004). "Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 291 (14): 1701–12. PMID 15082697. doi:10.1001/jama.291.14.1701.
Jump up ^ Grodstein F, Clarkson TB, Manson JE (2003). "Understanding the divergent data on postmenopausal hormone therapy". N Engl J Med. 348 (7): 645–50. PMID 12584376. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb022365.
Jump up ^ Vandenbroucke JP (2009). "The HRT controversy: observational studies and RCTs fall in line". Lancet. 373 (9671): 1233–5. PMID 19362661. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60708-X.
Jump up ^ Hsu A, Card A, Lin SX, Mota S, Carrasquillo O, Moran A (2009). "Changes in postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy use among women with high cardiovascular risk". Am J Public Health. 99 (12): 2184–7. PMC 2775780  . PMID 19833984. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.159889.
Jump up ^ Bell, S.H., & Peck, L.R. (2012). "Obstacles to and limitations of social experiments: 15 false alarms". Abt Thought Leadership Paper Series. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b c Sanson-Fisher RW, Bonevski B, Green LW, D'Este C (2007). "Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions". Am J Prev Med. 33 (2): 155–61. PMID 17673104. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.007.
^ Jump up to: a b Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS (2006). "Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs" (PDF). Lancet. 367 (9519): 1319–27. PMID 16631910. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68578-4.
^ Jump up to: a b Yitschaky O, Yitschaky M, Zadik Y (May 2011). "Case report on trial: Do you, Doctor, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (PDF). J Med Case Reports. 5 (1): 179. PMC 3113995  . PMID 21569508. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-5-179.
Jump up ^ "How Well Do Meta-Analyses Disclose Conflicts of Interests in Underlying Research Studies | The Cochrane Collaboration". Cochrane.org. Retrieved 2011-08-19.
Jump up ^ Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003). "Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review". J Am Med Assoc. 289 (4): 454–65. PMID 12533125. doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454.
^ Jump up to: a b Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ (2004). "Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials". Can Med Assoc J. 170 (4): 477–80. PMC 332713  . PMID 14970094.
Jump up ^ Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A (2014). "Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study". BMJ. 349. PMID 25491195.
Jump up ^ Ridker PM, Torres J (2006). "Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005". JAMA. 295 (19): 2270–4. PMID 16705108. doi:10.1001/jama.295.19.2270.
Jump up ^ Song Zhang; Jing Cao; Ahn, C. (23 June 2010). "Calculating sample size in trials using historical controls".
Jump up ^ Rowland, D., DiGuiseppi, C., Gross, M., Afolabi, E. and Roberts, I. (2003). "Randomised controlled trial of site specific advice on school travel patterns.". Archives of Disease in Childhood. 88 (1): 8–11. doi:10.1136/adc.88.1.8. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Graham-Rowe, E., Skippon, S., Gardner, B. and Abraham, C. (2011). "Can we reduce car use and, if so, how? A review of available evidence.". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 44 (5): 401–418. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Melia(2011) Do Randomised Control Trials Offer a Solution to ’low Quality’ Transport Research? Bristol: University of the West of England]
Jump up ^ "Introduction to evaluations", J-PAL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jump up ^ Banerjee AV, Cole S, Duflo E, Linden L (2007). "Remedying education: evidence from two randomized experiments in India". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122 (3): 1235–1264. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235.
Jump up ^ "Georgetown University Initiative on Innovation, Development and Evaluation". Georgetown University. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
Jump up ^ Karlan D, Zinman J (2010). "Expanding credit access: using randomized supply decisions to estimate the impacts". Review of Financial Studies. 23 (1): 433–464. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhp092.
^ Jump up to: a b Olken BA (2007). "Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia". Journal of Political Economy. 115 (2): 200–249. doi:10.1086/517935.
^ Jump up to: a b Farrington DP, Welsh BC (2005). "Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades?". Journal of Experimental Criminology. 1 (1): 9–38. doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6460-0.
Jump up ^ Hollin CR (2008). "Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: does only randomization glister?". Criminology and Criminal Justice. 8 (1): 89–106. doi:10.1177/1748895807085871.
Jump up ^ Walker HM, Seeley JR, Small J, Severson HH, Graham BA, Feil EG, Serna L, Golly AM, Forness SR (2009). "A randomized controlled trial of the First Step to Success early intervention. Demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse, urban school district". Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 17 (4): 197–212. doi:10.1177/1063426609341645.
Jump up ^ Bradshaw CP, Zmuda JH, Kellam SG, Ialongo NS (2009). "Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school". Journal of Educational Psychology. 101 (4): 926–937. doi:10.1037/a0016586.
Jump up ^ Baker, Philip R. A.; Francis, Daniel P.; Cathcart, Abby (2017-04-22). "A Mock Randomized Controlled Trial With Audience Response Technology for Teaching and Learning Epidemiology". Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 29 (3): 229–240. doi:10.1177/1010539517700473.
Further reading[edit]
Berger, M. P. F.; Wong, W. K. (2009). An Introduction to Optimal Designs for Social and Biomedical Research. John Wiley & Sons. p. 346. ISBN 978-0-470-69450-3.
Bhargava Alok (2008). "Randomized controlled experiments in health and social sciences: Some conceptual issues". Economics and Human Biology. 6: 293–298. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2008.01.001.
Domanski MJ, McKinlay S. Successful randomized trials: a handbook for the 21st century. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7817-7945-6.
Jadad AR, Enkin M. Randomized controlled trials: questions, answers, and musings. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4051-3266-4.
Matthews JNS. Introduction to randomized controlled clinical trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2006. ISBN 1-58488-624-2.
Nezu AM, Nezu CM. Evidence-based outcome research: a practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-530463-3.
Solomon PL, Cavanaugh MM, Draine J. Randomized controlled trials: design and implementation for community-based psychosocial interventions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-533319-0.
Torgerson DJ, Torgerson C. Designing randomised trials in health, education and the social sciences: an introduction. Basingstoke, England, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. ISBN 978-0-230-53735-4.
External links[edit]
Bland M. Directory of randomisation software and services. University of York, 2008 March 19.
Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I. Testing treatments: better research for better health care. London: Pinter & Martin, 2010. ISBN 978-1-905177-35-6.
Gelband H. The impact of randomized clinical trials on health policy and medical practice: background paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1983. (Report OTA-BP-H-22.)
REFLECT (Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safeTy) Statement
Wathen JK, Cook JD. Power and bias in adaptively randomized clinical trials. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, 2006 July 12.
[show]
v
t
e
Clinical research and experimental design
Overview
Clinical trial
Trial protocols
Adaptive clinical trial
Academic clinical trials
Clinical study design
Controlled study
(EBM I to II-1; A to B)
Randomized controlled trial
Scientific experiment
Blind experiment
Open-label trial
Observational study
(EBM II-2 to II-3; B to C)
Cross-sectional study vs. Longitudinal study, Ecological study
Cohort study
Retrospective
Prospective
Case-control study (Nested case-control study)
Case series
Case study
Case report
Epidemiology/
methods
occurrence: Incidence (Cumulative incidence)
Prevalence
Point
Period
association: absolute (Absolute risk reduction, Attributable risk, Attributable risk percent)
relative (Relative risk, Odds ratio, Hazard ratio)
other: Clinical endpoint
Virulence
Infectivity
Mortality rate
Morbidity
Case fatality rate
Specificity and sensitivity
Likelihood-ratios
Pre/post-test probability
Trial/test types
In vitro
In vivo
Animal testing
Animal testing on non-human primates
First-in-man study
Multicenter trial
Seeding trial
Vaccine trial
Analysis of clinical trials
Risk–benefit ratio
Systematic review
Replication
Meta-analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis
Interpretation of results
Selection bias
Survivorship bias
Correlation does not imply causation
Null result
Category
Glossary
List of topics
[show]
v
t
e
Design of experiments
Scientific
method
Scientific experiment
Statistical design
Control
Internal and external validity
Experimental unit
Blinding
Optimal design: Bayesian
Random assignment
Randomization
Restricted randomization
Replication versus subsampling
Sample size
Treatment
and blocking
Treatment
Effect size
Contrast
Interaction
Confounding
Orthogonality
Blocking
Covariate
Nuisance variable
Models
and inference
Linear regression
Ordinary least squares
Bayesian
Random effect
Mixed model
Hierarchical model: Bayesian
Analysis of variance (Anova)
Cochran's theorem
Manova (multivariate)
Ancova (covariance)
Compare means
Multiple comparison
Designs

Completely
randomized
Factorial
Fractional factorial
Plackett-Burman
Taguchi
Response surface methodology
Polynomial and rational modeling
Box-Behnken
Central composite
Block
Generalized randomized block design (GRBD)
Latin square
Graeco-Latin square
Orthogonal array
Latin hypercube
Repeated measures design
Crossover study
Randomized controlled trial
Sequential analysis
Sequential probability ratio test
Glossary
Category
Statistics portal
Statistical outline
Statistical topics
[show]
v
t
e
Statistics
Outline
Index
[show]
Descriptive statistics
Continuous data
Center
Mean
arithmetic
geometric
harmonic
Median
Mode
Dispersion
Variance
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Percentile
Range
Interquartile range
Shape
Central limit theorem
Moments
Skewness
Kurtosis
L-moments
Count data
Index of dispersion
Summary tables
Grouped data
Frequency distribution
Contingency table
Dependence
Pearson product-moment correlation
Rank correlation
Spearman's rho
Kendall's tau
Partial correlation
Scatter plot
Graphics
Bar chart
Biplot
Box plot
Control chart
Correlogram
Fan chart
Forest plot
Histogram
Pie chart
Q–Q plot
Run chart
Scatter plot
Stem-and-leaf display
Radar chart
[show]
Data collection
Study design
Population
Statistic
Effect size
Statistical power
Sample size determination
Missing data
Survey methodology
Sampling
stratified
cluster
Standard error
Opinion poll
Questionnaire
Controlled experiments
Design
control
optimal
Controlled trial
Randomized
Random assignment
Replication
Blocking
Interaction
Factorial experiment
Uncontrolled studies
Observational study
Natural experiment
Quasi-experiment
[show]
Statistical inference
Statistical theory
Population
Statistic
Probability distribution
Sampling distribution
Order statistic
Empirical distribution
Density estimation
Statistical model
Lp space
Parameter
location
scale
shape
Parametric family
Likelihood (monotone)
Location–scale family
Exponential family
Completeness
Sufficiency
Statistical functional
Bootstrap
U
V
Optimal decision
loss function
Efficiency
Statistical distance
divergence
Asymptotics
Robustness
Frequentist inference
Point estimation
Estimating equations
Maximum likelihood
Method of moments
M-estimator
Minimum distance
Unbiased estimators
Mean-unbiased minimum-variance
Rao–Blackwellization
Lehmann–Scheffé theorem
Median unbiased
Plug-in
Interval estimation
Confidence interval
Pivot
Likelihood interval
Prediction interval
Tolerance interval
Resampling
Bootstrap
Jackknife
Testing hypotheses
1- & 2-tails
Power
Uniformly most powerful test
Permutation test
Randomization test
Multiple comparisons
Parametric tests
Likelihood-ratio
Wald
Score
Specific tests
Z (normal)
Student's t-test
F
Goodness of fit
Chi-squared
Kolmogorov–Smirnov
Anderson–Darling
Lilliefors
Jarque–Bera
Normality (Shapiro–Wilk)
Likelihood-ratio test
Model selection
Cross validation
AIC
BIC
Rank statistics
Sign
Sample median
Signed rank (Wilcoxon)
Hodges–Lehmann estimator
Rank sum (Mann–Whitney)
Nonparametric anova
1-way (Kruskal–Wallis)
2-way (Friedman)
Ordered alternative (Jonckheere–Terpstra)
Bayesian inference
Bayesian probability
prior
posterior
Credible interval
Bayes factor
Bayesian estimator
Maximum posterior estimator
[show]
Correlation
Regression analysis
Correlation
Pearson product-moment
Partial correlation
Confounding variable
Coefficient of determination
Regression analysis
Errors and residuals
Regression model validation
Mixed effects models
Simultaneous equations models
Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)
Linear regression
Simple linear regression
Ordinary least squares
General linear model
Bayesian regression
Non-standard predictors
Nonlinear regression
Nonparametric
Semiparametric
Isotonic
Robust
Heteroscedasticity
Homoscedasticity
Generalized linear model
Exponential families
Logistic (Bernoulli) / Binomial / Poisson regressions
Partition of variance
Analysis of variance (ANOVA, anova)
Analysis of covariance
Multivariate ANOVA
Degrees of freedom
[show]
Categorical / Multivariate / Time-series / Survival analysis
Categorical
Cohen's kappa
Contingency table
Graphical model
Log-linear model
McNemar's test
Multivariate
Regression
Manova
Principal components
Canonical correlation
Discriminant analysis
Cluster analysis
Classification
Structural equation model
Factor analysis
Multivariate distributions
Elliptical distributions
Normal
Time-series
General
Decomposition
Trend
Stationarity
Seasonal adjustment
Exponential smoothing
Cointegration
Structural break
Granger causality
Specific tests
Dickey–Fuller
Johansen
Q-statistic (Ljung–Box)
Durbin–Watson
Breusch–Godfrey
Time domain
Autocorrelation (ACF)
partial (PACF)
Cross-correlation (XCF)
ARMA model
ARIMA model (Box–Jenkins)
Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH)
Vector autoregression (VAR)
Frequency domain
Spectral density estimation
Fourier analysis
Wavelet
Survival
Survival function
Kaplan–Meier estimator (product limit)
Proportional hazards models
Accelerated failure time (AFT) model
First hitting time
Hazard function
Nelson–Aalen estimator
Test
Log-rank test
[hide]
Applications
Biostatistics
Bioinformatics
Clinical trials / studies
Epidemiology
Medical statistics
Engineering statistics
Chemometrics
Methods engineering
Probabilistic design
Process / quality control
Reliability
System identification
Social statistics
Actuarial science
Census
Crime statistics
Demography
Econometrics
National accounts
Official statistics
Population statistics
Psychometrics
Spatial statistics
Cartography
Environmental statistics
Geographic information system
Geostatistics
Kriging
Category
Portal
Commons
WikiProject
[show]
v
t
e
Public health
General
Auxology
Biological hazard
Chief Medical Officer
Cultural competence
Deviance
Environmental health
Euthenics
Genomics
Globalization and disease
Health economics
Health literacy
Health policy
Health system
Health care reform
Public health law
Maternal health
Medical anthropology
Medical sociology
Mental health
Pharmaceutical policy
Public health laboratory
Reproductive health
Social psychology
Sociology of health and illness
Preventive healthcare
Behavior change
Theories
Family planning
Health promotion
Human nutrition
Preventive nutrition
Hygiene
Food safety
Hand washing
Infection control
Oral hygiene
Occupational safety and health
Human factors and ergonomics
Hygiene
Injury prevention
Medicine
Nursing
Patient safety
Organization
Pharmacovigilance
Safe sex
Sanitation
Emergency
Fecal–oral transmission
Open defecation
Sanitary sewer
Waterborne diseases
Smoking cessation
Vaccination
Vector control
Population health
Biostatistics
Child mortality
Community health
Epidemiology
Global health
Health impact assessment
Health system
Infant mortality
Open-source healthcare software
Public health informatics
Social determinants of health
Health equity
Race and health
Social medicine
Biological and
epidemiological statistics
Case-control study
Randomized controlled trial
Relative risk
Statistical hypothesis testing
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Regression analysis
ROC curve
Student's t-test
Z-test
Statistical software
Infectious and epidemic
disease prevention
Asymptomatic carrier
Epidemics
List
Notifiable diseases
List
Public health surveillance
Disease surveillance
Quarantine
Sexually transmitted infection
Tropical disease
Vaccine trial
Food hygiene and
safety management
Food
Additive
Chemistry
Engineering
Microbiology
Processing
Safety
Safety scandals
Genetically modified food
Good agricultural practice
Good manufacturing practice
HACCP
ISO 22000
Health behavioral
sciences
Diffusion of innovations
Health belief model
Health communication
Health psychology
Positive deviance
PRECEDE-PROCEED model
Social cognitive theory
Social norms approach
Theory of planned behavior
Transtheoretical model
Organizations,
education
and history
Organizations
Europe
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
City and county health departments
Council on Education for Public Health
Public Health Service
World Health Organization
World Toilet Organization
Education
Health education
Higher education
Bachelor of Science in Public Health
Doctor of Public Health
Professional degrees of public health
Schools of public health
History
Sara Josephine Baker
Samuel Jay Crumbine
Carl Rogers Darnall
Joseph Lister
Margaret Sanger
John Snow
Typhoid Mary
Germ theory of disease
Social hygiene movement
Category
Commons
WikiProject
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randomized_controlled_trial&oldid=799885272"
Categories:
Clinical research
Epidemiological study projects
Evidence-based practices
Design of experiments
Causal inference
Experiments
Research methods
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Български
Català
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Gaeilge
Galego
Bahasa Indonesia
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 10 September 2017, at 11:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

value: sup

attrs: href title

values:
/wiki/Adverse_drug_reactions
mw-redirect
Adverse drug reactions

values:
/wiki/Tossing_a_coin
mw-redirect
Tossing a coin

values:
/wiki/Ronald_A._Fisher
mw-redirect
Ronald A. Fisher

values:
/wiki/Medical_Research_Council_(UK)
mw-redirect
Medical Research Council (UK)

values: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

values:
nofollow
http://www.icmje.org/
external text

values:
/wiki/Study_design
mw-redirect
Study design

values: Edit section: By outcome of interest (efficacy vs. effectiveness)

values: Edit section: By hypothesis (superiority vs. noninferiority vs. equivalence)

values:
/wiki/Lurking_variable
mw-redirect
Lurking variable

values:
/wiki/Clinical_trial_protocol
mw-redirect
Clinical trial protocol

values:
/wiki/Blind_experiment
mw-redirect
Blind experiment

values:
/wiki/Cox_proportional_hazards_model
mw-redirect
Cox proportional hazards model

values:
/wiki/Coronary_heart_disease
mw-redirect
Coronary heart disease

values:
/wiki/Multiple_comparisons
mw-redirect
Multiple comparisons

values: Edit section: Relative importance and observational studies

values: Journal of the American Medical Association

values: Edit section: Interpretation of statistical results

values:
/wiki/Sample_size
mw-redirect
Sample size

values: National Health and Medical Research Council

values:
/wiki/Clinical_practice_guideline
mw-redirect
Clinical practice guideline

values: United States Preventive Services Task Force

values: Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine

values:
/wiki/Confidence_Interval
mw-redirect
Confidence Interval

values:
/wiki/Antiarrhythmic_agents
mw-redirect
Antiarrhythmic agents

values: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

values:
/wiki/Patient_history
mw-redirect
Patient history

values: Edit section: Conflict of interest dangers

values:
/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration
mw-redirect
Cochrane Collaboration

values:
/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trials
mw-redirect
Randomized controlled trials

values:
/wiki/Quasi-experimental_design
mw-redirect
Quasi-experimental design

values:
/wiki/Hypothesis_testing
mw-redirect
Hypothesis testing

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332509

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.c332

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values:
/wiki/Controlled_Clinical_Trials
mw-redirect
Controlled Clinical Trials

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7261638

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332511

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.c869

values:
/wiki/Psychother_Psychosom
mw-redirect
Psychother Psychosom

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16244516

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1159%2F000087787

values:
/wiki/Br_J_Cancer
mw-redirect
Br J Cancer

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/795448

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fbjc.1976.220

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/831755

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fbjc.1977.1

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15246726

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9059193

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Ffn.76.1.f64

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/234674

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F354775

values:
/wiki/Stephen_M._Stigler
mw-redirect
Stephen M. Stigler

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F444032

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9519574

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F383850

values: Statistical Methods for Research Workers

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0081-4776

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18890300

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.2.4582.769

values:
/wiki/Washington_Post
mw-redirect
Washington Post

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17060757

values:
/wiki/Am_J_Roentgenol
mw-redirect
Am J Roentgenol

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547188

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2214%2Fajr.183.6.01831539

values: Hematol Oncol Clin North Am (page does not exist)

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10949771

values:
/wiki/N_Engl_J_Med
mw-redirect
N Engl J Med

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3600702

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM198707163170304

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11653056

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9794861

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.317.7167.1209

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/431682

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM197905313002203

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9518917

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.316.7131.606

values:
/wiki/Int_J_Law_Psychiatry
mw-redirect
Int J Law Psychiatry

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6135666

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044980

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15356289

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMe048225

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22147862

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1377%2Fhlthaff.2011.0172

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19724045

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.2009.1242

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23680610

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332510

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.c723

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19001484

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.a2390

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16522836

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.295.10.1152

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11853818

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867132

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25490908

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3060315

values:
nofollow
external text
http://jme.bmj.com/content/24/6/401

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fjme.24.6.401

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2605967

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3203526

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8119063

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651970

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15817527

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.38414.422650.8F

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18316340

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.39465.451748.AD

values:
/wiki/J_Am_Med_Assoc
mw-redirect
J Am Med Assoc

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11308438

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.15.2000

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17060210

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382828

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7787537

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.310.6991.1360

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675689

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8290055

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1212%2Fwnl.44.1.16

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11583749

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11277825

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.13.1711

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12117397

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.288.3.321

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10480822

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.319.7211.670

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.consort-statement.org

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22951546

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.e5661

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283207

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283201

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10861324

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM200006223422506

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10861325

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM200006223422507

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11497536

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.286.7.821

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18336067

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634569

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.312.7040.1215

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17303884

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.39070.527986.68

values:
/wiki/Proc_Natl_Acad_Sci_U_S_A
mw-redirect
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11904381

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.072067999

values:
/wiki/Epidemiol_Rev
mw-redirect
Epidemiol Rev

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12119854

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1093%2Fepirev%2F24.1.39

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/355881

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM197809282991304

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19435763

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.b1732

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11306229

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18456631

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.39490.551019.BE

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024734

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2473403

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJM198908103210629

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082697

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.291.14.1701

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12584376

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMsb022365

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19362661

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833984

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2009.159889

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17673104

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.chrp.org/pdf/HSR20070511.pdf

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16631910

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21569508

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533125

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.289.4.454

values:
/wiki/Can_Med_Assoc_J
mw-redirect
Can Med Assoc J

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14970094

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25491195

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16705108

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.295.19.2270

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1136%2Fadc.88.1.8

values:
nofollow
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16117/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1162%2Fqjec.122.3.1235

values:
nofollow
http://gui2de.georgetown.edu/
external text

values:
/wiki/Review_of_Financial_Studies
mw-redirect
Review of Financial Studies

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1093%2Frfs%2Fhhp092

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F517935

values:
/wiki/Criminology_and_Criminal_Justice
mw-redirect
Criminology and Criminal Justice

values: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0016586

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ehb.2008.01.001

values: -moz-column-width: 40em; -webkit-column-width: 40em; column-width: 40em;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://fas.org/ota/reports/8310.pdf

values:
nofollow
http://reflect-statement.org/
external text

values:
/wiki/Academic_clinical_trials
mw-redirect
Academic clinical trials

values:
/wiki/Epidemiological_methods
mw-redirect
Epidemiological methods

values:
/wiki/Point_prevalence
mw-redirect
Point prevalence

values:
/wiki/Period_prevalence
mw-redirect
Period prevalence

values:
/wiki/Association_(statistics)
mw-redirect
Association (statistics)

values:
/wiki/Specificity_and_sensitivity
mw-redirect
Specificity and sensitivity

values:
/wiki/First-in-man_study
mw-redirect
First-in-man study

values:
/wiki/List_of_clinical_research_topics
mw-redirect
List of clinical research topics

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
/wiki/Experimental_unit
mw-redirect
Experimental unit

values:
/wiki/Random_effect
mw-redirect
Random effect

values:
/wiki/Hierarchical_linear_modeling
mw-redirect
Hierarchical linear modeling

values:
/wiki/Hierarchical_Bayes_model
mw-redirect
Hierarchical Bayes model

values:
/wiki/Comparing_means
mw-redirect
Comparing means

values:
/wiki/Multiple_comparison
mw-redirect
Multiple comparison

values:
/wiki/Plackett-Burman_design
mw-redirect
Plackett-Burman design

values: Polynomial and rational function modeling

values:
/wiki/Shape_of_the_distribution
mw-redirect
Shape of the distribution

values: Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

values: Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values:
/wiki/Population_(statistics)
mw-redirect
Population (statistics)

values:
/wiki/Maximum_likelihood
mw-redirect
Maximum likelihood

values:
/wiki/Median-unbiased_estimator
mw-redirect
Median-unbiased estimator

values:
/wiki/Likelihood_interval
mw-redirect
Likelihood interval

values:
/wiki/Power_(statistics)
mw-redirect
Power (statistics)

values:
/wiki/Permutation_test
mw-redirect
Permutation test

values:
/wiki/Randomization_test
mw-redirect
Randomization test

values:
/wiki/Rank_statistics
mw-redirect
Rank statistics

values:
/wiki/Sample_median
mw-redirect
Sample median

values: Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance

values:
CorrelationRegression_analysis
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em
hlist hlist-separated

values:
/wiki/Regression_model_validation
mw-redirect
Regression model validation

values: Multivariate adaptive regression splines

values:
/wiki/Multivariate_distribution
mw-redirect
Multivariate distribution

values:
/wiki/Trend_estimation
mw-redirect
Trend estimation

values: List of fields of application of statistics

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-subgroup

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: navigation navbox Statistics padding:3px

values:
/wiki/PRECEDE-PROCEED_model
mw-redirect
PRECEDE-PROCEED model

values: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

values: European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

values: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

values: Category:City and county health departments in the United States

values:
/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Lister
mw-redirect
Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister

values:
/wiki/John_Snow_(physician)
mw-redirect
John Snow (physician)

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values:
/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: تجربة منضبطة معشاة – Arabic

values: Рандомизирано клинично изпитване – Bulgarian

values: Randomisierte kontrollierte Studie – German

values: Prueba controlada aleatorizada – Spanish

values: آزمایش تصادفی کنترل‌شده – Persian

values: Estudo aleatorizado controlado – Galician

values: Gerandomiseerd onderzoek met controlegroep – Dutch

values: ランダム化比較試験 – Japanese

values: Randomisert kontrollert studie – Norwegian

values: Estudo clínico randomizado controlado – Portuguese

values: Рандомизированное контролируемое испытание – Russian

values: Randomiserad kontrollerad studie – Swedish

values: การทดลองแบบสุ่มและมีกลุ่มควบคุม – Thai

values: Рандомізоване контрольоване дослідження – Ukrainian

values: 随机对照试验 – Chinese

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Randomized_controlled_trial rootpage-Randomized_controlled_trial vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view