The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
| Autor: | Zarique Zaowaad Akanda, Abdul Naeem, William Hodge, Jeffrey T Y Chow, Kevin Lam, Francie Si |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Evidence-based practice Specialty MEDLINE Alternative medicine Medicine (miscellaneous) 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology law.invention 03 medical and health sciences Clinical trials 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law Humans Medicine Pharmacology (medical) 030212 general & internal medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Evidence-Based Medicine business.industry Research Patient Selection Methodology Justification Clinical trial Otorhinolaryngology Research Design Sample size determination Sample Size Family medicine Randomized controlled trials business Evidence-based Specialization Clinical psychology |
| Zdroj: | Trials |
| ISSN: | 1745-6215 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z |
| Popis: | Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied. Methods We reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties. Results For Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties. Conclusions The justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|