Literature DB >> 18677782

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.

Gunn Elisabeth Vist1, Dianne Bryant, Lyndsay Somerville, Trevor Birminghem, Andrew D Oxman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs. SEARCH STRATEGY: In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. MAIN
RESULTS: We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18677782      PMCID: PMC8276557          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  269 in total

1.  The role of client choice and target selection in self-management therapy for depression in older adults.

Authors:  P D Rokke; J A Tomhave; Z Jocic
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1999-03

2.  Opiate withdrawal: inpatient versus outpatient programmes and preferred versus random assignment to treatment.

Authors:  M Gossop; A Johns; L Green
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-07-12

3.  Ketoconazole for early treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. The ARDS Network.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Relapse rates following cessation of chemotherapy during complete remission of acute lymphocytic leukemia.

Authors:  E Baum; H Sather; J Nachman; J Seinfeld; W Krivit; S Leikin; D Miller; P Joo; D Hammond
Journal:  Med Pediatr Oncol       Date:  1979

5.  A randomised controlled trial of cytological surveillance versus patient choice between surveillance and colposcopy in managing mildly abnormal cervical smears.

Authors:  H C Kitchener; S Burns; L Nelson; A J Myers; I Fletcher; M Desai; G Dunn; P Maguire
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.531

6.  Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison.

Authors:  P Jha; D Deboer; K Sykora; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  The effect of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate on pregnancy outcome in an active-duty military population.

Authors:  J C Hauth; L C Gilstrap; A L Brekken; J M Hauth
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1983-05-15       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Ceruletide-assisted cholecystography: a clinical assessment.

Authors:  S M Wetzner; M E Vincent; A H Robbins
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1979-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Impact of providing audiotapes of primary adjuvant treatment consultations to women with breast cancer: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas F Hack; Tom Pickles; Barry D Bultz; J Dean Ruether; Lorna M Weir; Lesley F Degner; John R Mackey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-11-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Utility of the prehospital electrocardiogram in diagnosing acute coronary syndromes: the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention (MITI) Project.

Authors:  P J Kudenchuk; C Maynard; L A Cobb; M Wirkus; J S Martin; J W Kennedy; W D Weaver
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  45 in total

1.  The end of evidence-based medicine?

Authors:  David A Clark
Journal:  Inflammopharmacology       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 4.473

2.  Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research.

Authors:  Bostjan Seruga; Aleksander Sadikov; Eduardo L Cazap; Lucia Beatriz Delgado; Raghunadharao Digumarti; Natasha B Leighl; Mohamed M Meshref; Hironobu Minami; Eliezer Robinson; Nise Hitomi Yamaguchi; Doug Pyle; Tanja Cufer
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-12-09

Review 3.  Unproven therapies in clinical research and practice: the necessity to change the regulatory paradigm.

Authors:  Susan H Wootton; Patricia W Evans; Jon E Tyson
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  SUPPORTing premature infants.

Authors:  John D Lantos
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 5.  From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation.

Authors:  Nandita Khera
Journal:  Blood Rev       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 8.250

6.  Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation Among Saudi Nationals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Khalid M Almutairi; Wadi B Alonazi; Abdulaziz A Alodhayani; Jason M Vinluan; Mahaman Moussa; Abdulrahman S Al-Ajlan; Khalid Alsaleh; Duna Alruwaimi; Nader E Alotaibi
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2017-04

Review 7.  Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Natasha Fernandes; Dianne Bryant; Lauren Griffith; Mohamed El-Rabbany; Nisha M Fernandes; Crystal Kean; Jacquelyn Marsh; Siddhi Mathur; Rebecca Moyer; Clare J Reade; John J Riva; Lyndsay Somerville; Neera Bhatnagar
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 8.  The ineligible patient: how to treat patients not included in clinical studies.

Authors:  Frances J Mao; Brian I Rini
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  An ethical hierarchy for decision making during medical emergencies.

Authors:  Patrick D Lyden; Brett C Meyer; Thomas M Hemmen; Karen S Rapp
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 10.422

10.  Stroke: Are care and outcomes better for participants of stroke trials?

Authors:  Mary Joan Macleod; Carl E Counsell
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 42.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.