Randomized controlled trials: part 17 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications.

BACKGROUND In clinical research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to study the safety and efficacy of new treatments. RCTs are used to answer patient-related questions and are required by governmental regulatory bodies as the basis for approval decisions. METHODS To help readers understand and evaluate RCTs, we discuss the methods and qualitative requirements of RCTs with reference to the literature and an illustrative case study. The discussion here corresponds to expositions of the subject that can be found in many textbooks but also reflects the authors' personal experience in planning, conducting and analyzing RCTs. RESULTS The quality of an RCT depends on an appropriate study question and study design, the prevention of systematic errors, and the use of proper analytical techniques. All of these aspects must be attended to in the planning, conductance, analysis, and reporting of RCTs. RCTs must also meet ethical and legal requirements. CONCLUSION RCTs cannot yield reliable data unless they are planned, conducted, analyzed, and reported in ways that are methodologically sound and appropriate to the question being asked. The quality of any RCT must be critically evaluated before its relevance to patient care can be considered.

[1]  J. Lewis,et al.  Statistical principles for clinical trials (ICH E9): an introductory note on an international guideline. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  G. Antes,et al.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2011 .

[3]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Choosing statistical tests: part 12 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2010, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[4]  M. Blettner,et al.  Study design in medical research: part 2 of a series on the evaluation of scientific publications. , 2009, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[5]  G. Hommel,et al.  Judging a plethora of p-values: how to contend with the problem of multiple testing--part 10 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2010, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[6]  S. Eckstein Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2001, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[7]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  B. Rodda,et al.  Clinical trials: Design, conduct, and analysis , 1987 .

[9]  Guidance for Industry E 10 Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials , 2001 .

[10]  Shein-Chung Chow,et al.  Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials: Concepts and Methodologies , 2013 .

[11]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[12]  H. Büller,et al.  Aspirin plus heparin or aspirin alone in women with recurrent miscarriage. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  J. Ellenberg Intention to Treat Analysis , 2005 .

[14]  Karl E. Peace,et al.  Intention to treat in clinical trials , 1989 .

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMC medicine.

[16]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Types of study in medical research: part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2009, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[17]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Part 9 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications , 2011 .

[18]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Descriptive statistics: the specification of statistical measures and their presentation in tables and graphs. Part 7 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2009, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[19]  M. Schumacher,et al.  Methodik klinischer Studien , 2002 .

[20]  Maria Blettner,et al.  Sample size calculation in clinical trials: part 13 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2010, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[21]  G. Hommel,et al.  Survival analysis: part 15 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2011, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[22]  R. Harbour,et al.  A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.