Common Design Concepts in Randomized Controlled Trials.

Bolaji Emmanuel Egbewale
{"title":"Common Design Concepts in Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Bolaji Emmanuel Egbewale","doi":"10.4103/nmj.NMJ_112_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is a known fact that Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design methods in medical investigations particularly when the aim is comparison of medical therapies or effectiveness of intervention between treatment groups. This design method, once carefully followed, presents the highest level of evidence attainable in the measurement of treatment effect. Oftentimes, researchers confuse concepts related to the design of RCTs and thereby jeopardizing its benefits. Furthermore, in resource-poor settings, a very limited access to educational materials on design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials exists. This among other reasons explains why most studies in such settings are observational in nature as RCTs are not as popular. This review adopted a narrative synthesis approach to aggregate current knowledge scattered in literatures in respect of selected common design concepts in RCTs so as to elucidate on their meaning and demands. Overall, 25 literatures drawn majorly from the PubMed database including 8 textbook materials were involved in examining the following concepts; Study Population in RCTs Setting, Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures, Single and Multicenter Trials, Pragmatic and Explanatory trials, and Blinding. Appropriate search terms for each of the concepts were entered into the PubMed database and relevant articles accessed. This review article, intended for educational purposes could also serve as a guide, especially for new entrants, in the design of RCTs. It is hoped that this educational material would contribute immensely toward maximizing the benefits of this all-important design method.</p>","PeriodicalId":19223,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Medical Journal : Journal of the Nigeria Medical Association","volume":"61 2","pages":"51-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2c/81/NMJ-61-51.PMC7357810.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Medical Journal : Journal of the Nigeria Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/nmj.NMJ_112_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is a known fact that Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design methods in medical investigations particularly when the aim is comparison of medical therapies or effectiveness of intervention between treatment groups. This design method, once carefully followed, presents the highest level of evidence attainable in the measurement of treatment effect. Oftentimes, researchers confuse concepts related to the design of RCTs and thereby jeopardizing its benefits. Furthermore, in resource-poor settings, a very limited access to educational materials on design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials exists. This among other reasons explains why most studies in such settings are observational in nature as RCTs are not as popular. This review adopted a narrative synthesis approach to aggregate current knowledge scattered in literatures in respect of selected common design concepts in RCTs so as to elucidate on their meaning and demands. Overall, 25 literatures drawn majorly from the PubMed database including 8 textbook materials were involved in examining the following concepts; Study Population in RCTs Setting, Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures, Single and Multicenter Trials, Pragmatic and Explanatory trials, and Blinding. Appropriate search terms for each of the concepts were entered into the PubMed database and relevant articles accessed. This review article, intended for educational purposes could also serve as a guide, especially for new entrants, in the design of RCTs. It is hoped that this educational material would contribute immensely toward maximizing the benefits of this all-important design method.

随机对照试验中的常见设计概念。
众所周知,随机对照试验(RCTs)是医学调查的黄金标准设计方法,特别是当目的是比较医疗疗法或治疗组之间干预的有效性时。这种设计方法,一旦仔细遵循,在治疗效果的测量中提供了最高水平的证据。通常,研究人员混淆了与随机对照试验设计相关的概念,从而损害了它的好处。此外,在资源贫乏的环境中,获得有关临床试验设计、实施和报告的教育材料的机会非常有限。除其他原因外,这解释了为什么在这种情况下的大多数研究本质上是观察性的,因为随机对照试验不那么受欢迎。本综述采用叙事综合的方法,对随机对照试验中选取的常见设计概念进行文献知识汇总,以阐明其意义和需求。总的来说,主要从PubMed数据库中提取的25篇文献,包括8本教材,涉及以下概念的检验;随机对照试验中的研究人群,主要和次要结果测量,单中心和多中心试验,实用和解释试验,以及盲法。每个概念的适当搜索词被输入PubMed数据库并访问相关文章。这篇旨在教育目的的综述文章也可以作为随机对照试验设计的指南,特别是对于新进入者。希望这一教育材料能够极大地促进这种非常重要的设计方法的好处最大化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信