Overview of clinical research design.

PURPOSE Basic concepts and terminology of clinical research design are presented for new clinical investigators. SUMMARY Clinical research, research involving human subjects, can be described as either observational or experimental. The findings of all clinical research can be threatened by issues of bias and confounding. Biases are systematic errors in how study subjects are selected or measured, which result in false inferences. Confounding is a distortion in findings that is attributable to mixing variable effects. Uncontrolled observation research is generally more prone to bias and confounding than experimental research. Observational research includes designs such as the cohort study, case-control study, and cross-sectional study, while experimental research typically involves a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The cohort study, which includes the RCT, defines subject allocation on the basis of exposure interest (e.g., drug, disease-management program) and follows the patients to assess the outcomes. The case-control study uses the primary outcome of interest (e.g., adverse event) to define subject allocation, and different exposures are assessed in a retrospective manner. Cross-sectional research evaluates both exposure and outcome concurrently. Each of these design methods possesses different strengths and weaknesses in answering research questions, as well as underlying many study subtypes. CONCLUSION While experimental research is the strongest method for establishing causality, it can be difficult to accomplish under many scenarios. Observational clinical research offers many design alternatives that may be appropriate if planned and executed carefully.

[1]  D. Rosenstein,et al.  The nature and power of the placebo effect. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Til Stürmer,et al.  Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. , 2006, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[3]  Daniel M. Hartung,et al.  Risk of Hospitalization for Heart Failure Associated with Thiazolidinedione Therapy: A Medicaid Claims–Based Case‐Control Study , 2005, Pharmacotherapy.

[4]  A. M. Walker,et al.  An application of propensity score matching using claims data , 2005, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[5]  K. Schulz,et al.  Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  W. Ray,et al.  Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  D. Stryer,et al.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. , 2003, JAMA.

[8]  J. Manson,et al.  Understanding the divergent data on postmenopausal hormone therapy. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  B. Davis,et al.  Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). , 2002, JAMA.

[10]  A K Wagner,et al.  Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research , 2002, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

[11]  Charles Kooperberg,et al.  Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[12]  K. Rothman Epidemiology: An Introduction , 2002 .

[13]  K. Schulz,et al.  Case-control studies: research in reverse , 2002, The Lancet.

[14]  David L Streiner,et al.  The Case of the Missing Data: Methods of Dealing with Dropouts and other Research Vagaries , 2002, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.

[15]  K. Schulz,et al.  Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes , 2002, The Lancet.

[16]  K. Schulz,et al.  Bias and causal associations in observational research , 2002, The Lancet.

[17]  K. Schulz,et al.  An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land , 2002, The Lancet.

[18]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Intention-to-treat principle. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[19]  J. Zhang,et al.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. , 1998, JAMA.

[20]  R. D'Agostino Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[21]  E. Vittinghoff,et al.  Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. , 1998, JAMA.

[22]  W A Ray,et al.  Policy and Program Analysis Using Administrative Databases , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  M Maclure,et al.  Case–crossover and case–time–control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research , 1997, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[24]  J A Lewis,et al.  Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods , 1996, BMJ.

[25]  M. Maclure The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. , 1991, American journal of epidemiology.

[26]  M. Farber Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach , 1990 .

[27]  J. Buring,et al.  Epidemiology in Medicine , 1987 .

[28]  A. B. Hill The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? , 1965, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[29]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[30]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[31]  D. DeMets,et al.  Fundamentals of Clinical Trials , 1982 .

[32]  D. Sackett Bias in analytic research. , 1979, Journal of chronic diseases.