Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15616404

Beyond randomized, controlled trials.

Didier Dreyfuss
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Most critical care physicians believe that randomized, controlled trials provide the best available evidence. This review contends that the importance of randomized, controlled trials was overemphasized and that they do not add more to knowledge and practice than physiologic and observational studies. In addition, protection of both patients and proxies may be less adequately ensured during randomized, controlled trials than during observational studies. RECENT FINDINGS: An analysis of the recent literature on critical care shows that conclusions from randomized, controlled trials are either disputable or do not affect existing practice. In addition, several papers reveal potential conflicts between randomized, controlled trials and ethical principles. SUMMARY: We may see in the future the twilight of randomized, controlled trials in critically ill patients because scientific, ethical, and sociologic substrata will be progressively lacking as will be funding.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicCritical CareCritical IllnessEthics, MedicalEuropean UnionHumansInformed ConsentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Didier Dreyfuss. 2004. Beyond randomized, controlled trials.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccx.0000144763.88787.e8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Estimation in flexible two stage designs.

Adaptive test designs for clinical trials allow for a wide range of data driven design adaptations using all information gathered until an interim analysis. The basic principle is to use a test statistics which is invariant with respect to the design adaptations under the null hypothesis. This allows for a control of the type I error rate for the primary hypothesis even for adaptations not specified a priori in the study protocol. Estimation is usually another important part of a clinical trial, however, is more difficult in adaptive designs. In this research paper we give an overview of point and interval estimates for flexible designs and compare methods for typical sample size rules. We also make some proposals for confidence intervals which have nominal coverage probability also after an unforeseen design adaptation and which contain the maximum likelihood estimate and the usual unadjusted confidence interval.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Power analyses for correlations from clustered study designs.

Power analysis constitutes an important component of modern clinical trials and research studies. Although a variety of methods and software packages are available, almost all of them are focused on regression models, with little attention paid to correlation analysis. However, the latter is arguably a simpler and more appropriate approach for modelling concurrent events, especially in psychosocial research. In this paper, we discuss power and sample size estimation for correlation analysis arising from clustered study designs. Our approach is based on the asymptotic distribution of correlated Pearson-type estimates. Although this asymptotic distribution is easy to use in data analysis, the presence of a large number of parameters creates a major problem for power analysis due to the lack of real data to estimate them. By introducing a surrogacy-type assumption, we show that all nuisance parameters can be eliminated, making it possible to perform power analysis based only on the parameters of interest. Simulation results suggest that power and sample size estimates obtained under the proposed approach are robust to this assumption.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

The sequential analysis of repeated binary responses: a score test for the case of three time points.

In this paper a robust method is developed for the analysis of data consisting of repeated binary observations taken at up to three fixed time points on each subject. The primary objective is to compare outcomes at the last time point, using earlier observations to predict this for subjects with incomplete records. A score test is derived. The method is developed for application to sequential clinical trials, as at interim analyses there will be many incomplete records occurring in non-informative patterns. Motivation for the methodology comes from experience with clinical trials in stroke and head injury, and data from one such trial is used to illustrate the approach. Extensions to more than three time points and to allow for stratification are discussed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗