Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T04:58:51.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Reflections on Randomized Controlled Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Tore Scherstén
Tore Scherstén
Affiliation:
University of Göteborg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few would argue that the randomized clinical trial is the most definitive instrument available for measuring the safety and efficacy of a new medical technology, be it drug, device, or procedure. Randomization removes the potential for bias in the allocation of subjects to the intervention group or to the control group. In addition, randomization tends to produce comparable groups which can be further strengthened by stratification and by stratified analyses. The randomized controlled trial guarantees validity of statistical tests, as long as the sample size is large enough to avoid type-II error.

Type
Technology Assessment: Policy, Clinical, and Methodological Issues
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 39 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W.Clinical research in general medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Hafström, L., Rudensteam, C.-M. & Domellöf, L.A randomized trial of oral 5-fluorouracil versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer Dukes' B and C: results after 5 years observation time. British Journal of Surgery, 1985, 72, 138–141.Google Scholar
3.Inglefinger, F J.The randomized clinical trial (editorial). New England Journal of Medicine, 1972, 287, 100–101.Google Scholar