Randomized controlled trials – A matter of design

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment

Volumn 12, Issue , 2016, Pages 1341-1349

  Spieth, Peter Markus ^a,b   Kubasch, Anne Sophie ^a   Penzlin, Ana Isabel ^a   Illigens, Ben Min Woo ^b,c   Barlinn, Kristian ^a   Siepmann, Timo ^a,b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^b DRESDEN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CONSORT; Randomized clinical trials; RCT; Study design; Validity

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPOISE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PUBLICATION; REGISTRATION; STUDY DESIGN; VALIDITY;

EID: 84973865242     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11782021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S101938     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Wunsch H, Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC. Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data. J Crit Care. 2006;21:1–7.
2. Reith C, Landray M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Randomized clinical trials – removing unnecessary obstacles. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1061–1065.
3. Berkman ND, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, et al. The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.
4. Collins R, MacMahon S. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet. 2001;357:373–380.
5. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365:1348–1353.
6. Lipsky MS, Sharp LK. From idea to market: the drug approval process. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:362–367.
7. Zhang Z, Peluso MJ, Gross CP, et al. Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials. Clin Trials. 2014;11:195–204.
8. Akobeng AK. Assessing the validity of clinical trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008;47:277–282.
9. Kabisch M, Ruckes C, Seibert-Grafe M, et al. On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109:276–281.
10. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670–674.
11. Whelan DB, Dainty K, Chahal J. Efficient designs: factorial randomized trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):34–38.
12. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194.
13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010;11:32.
14. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?” Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.
15. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42–46.
16. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359:515–519.
17. Rothwell PM. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006;1:e9.
18. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359:614–618.
19. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, et al. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297:1233–1240.
20. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359:696–700.
21. Stephenson JM, Babiker A. Overview of study design in clinical epidemiology. Sex Transm Infect. 2000;76:244–247.
22. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639.
23. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
24. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328:702–708.
25. Wellek S, Blettner M. Establishing equivalence or non-inferiority in clinical trials: part 20 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109:674–679.
26. Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, et al. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials – update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.
27. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295:1152–1160.
28. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309.
29. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:364–367.
30. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.
31. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1250–1251.
32. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, et al. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013;54:600–608.
33. Harhay MO, Wagner J, Ratcliffe SJ, et al. Outcomes and statistical power in adult critical care randomized trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:1469–1478.
34. Network TARDS. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1301–1308.
35. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–921.
36. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292:746–750.
37. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–145.
38. Fries JF, Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Care Res. 2004;6:250–255.
39. Mattle HP, Arnold M, Lindsberg PJ, Schonewille WJ, Schroth G. Basilar artery occlusion. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:1002–1014.
40. Emberson J, Lees KR, Lyden P, et al. Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;384:1929–1935.
41. Saqqur M, Uchino K, Demchuk AM, et al. Site of arterial occlusion identified by transcranial Doppler predicts the response to intravenous thrombolysis for stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:948–954.
42. Grotta JC, Hacke W. Stroke neurologist’s perspective on the new endovascular trials. Stroke. 2015;46:1447–1452.
43. Lindsberg PJ, Mattle HP. Therapy of basilar artery occlusion: a systematic analysis comparing intra-arterial and intravenous thrombolysis. Stroke. 2006;37:922–928.
44. Kumar G, Shahripour RB, Alexandrov AV. Recanalization of acute basilar artery occlusion improves outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7:868–874.
45. Schonewille WJ, Wijman CA, Michel P, et al; BASICS study group. Treatment and outcomes of acute basilar artery occlusion in the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS): a prospective registry study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:724–730.
46. van der Hoeven EJ, Schonewille WJ, Vos JA, et al; BASICS Study Group. The Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:200.
47. Tomsick TA, Khatri P, Jovin T, et al; IMS III Executive Committee. Equipoise among recanalization strategies. Neurology. 2010;74:1069–1076.
48. Fleming TR, Sharples K, McCall J, Moore A, Rodgers A, Stewart R. Maintaining confidentiality of interim data to enhance trial integrity and credibility. Clin Trials. 2008;5:157–167.