Current Paediatrics
Volume 13, Issue 1 , Pages 53-57, February 2003

The randomized controlled trial

  • David Field (Professor of Neonatal Medicine)

      Affiliations

    • Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK
    • ,
  • Diana Elbourne (Professor of Health Care Evaluation)

      Affiliations

    • Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK

Article Outline

Abstract 

In an era in which all aspects of medicine are being driven by evidence, one consequence has been an increased use of randomized controlled trials. This is not surprising as they represent the most rigorous method of assessment as, by their very nature, they eliminate much of the potential bias that makes other means of comparing ‘treatments’ less reliable. In order to produce clear evidence, however, any trial must be well constructed and carried out. Achieving this requires careful planning, and in this article we hope to cover the important issues that must be considered in relation to any randomized controlled trial.

Keywords: randomized controlled trial, children, randomization, ethics, equipoise

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

    REFERENCES
  1. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355:1064–1069
  2. Altman DG. Randomization. BMJ. 1991;302:1481–1482
  3. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125–128
  4. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412
  5. Haag U. Technologies for automating randomized treatment assignment in clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1998;32:7–11
  6. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274:1456–1458
  7. Altman DG, Bland JM. How to randomize. BMJ. 1999;319:703–704
  8. Enas GG, Enas NH, Spradlin CT, Wilson MG, Wiltse CG. Baseline comparability in clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1990;24:541–548
  9. Lancet. 1996;348:75–82
  10. Campbell MJ, Donner A, Elbourne D. Design and analysis of cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2001;20:329–496
  11. Senn S. Crossover Trials in Clinical Research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1993;
  12. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: a Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1983;
  13. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization: responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1337–1355
  14. Snowdon C, Elbourne ED, Garcia J. Zelen randomization: attitudes of parents participating in a neonatal clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:149–171
  15. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of records of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194
  16. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694
  17. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Reaction of participants to the results of a randomised controlled trial: exploratory study. BMJ. 1998;317:21–26
    FURTHER READING
  1. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1983;
  • f1 Correspondence to: DF. Tel: +44(0) 116 258 7707; fax: +44(0) 116 258 5502; E-mail: david.field@uhl-tr.nhs.uk

PII: S0957-5839(03)90409-X

doi:10.1054/cupe.2003.0409

Current Paediatrics
Volume 13, Issue 1 , Pages 53-57, February 2003

Article Tools