Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Sep 22;114(38):635-640.
doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0635.

The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials

Review

The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials

Stefan Lange et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int. .

Abstract

Background: The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research.

Methods: The diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples.

Results: A wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice.

Conclusion: Only the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Central Problem is Equipoise.
    Tsamaloukas AG. Tsamaloukas AG. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Feb 16;115(7):114. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0114a. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018. PMID: 29510825 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • No Substitute for a Doctor's Intuition.
    Torremante E. Torremante E. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Feb 16;115(7):114. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0114b. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018. PMID: 29510826 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • A Rare Cause of Splenomegaly.
    Hilbert-Carius P, Kaden I, Berg T, Weigert N. Hilbert-Carius P, et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Feb 16;115(7):116. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0116b. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018. PMID: 29510830 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Savovic J, Jones H, Altman D, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–82. - PubMed
    1. Blair E. Gold is not always good enough: the shortcomings of randomization when evaluating interventions in small heterogeneous samples. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1219–1222. - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ. 2005;330 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zucker DR, Ruthazer R, Schmid CH. Individual (N-of-1) trials can be combined to give population comparative treatment effect estimates: methodologic considerations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1312–1323. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chenot JF. Cluster-randomisierte Studien: eine wichtige Methode in der allgemeinmedizinischen Forschung. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009;103:475–480. - PubMed

MeSH terms