Literature DB >> 18837179

[Pre-randomisation in study designs: getting past the taboo].

R Schellings1, A G Kessels, F Sturmans.   

Abstract

In October 2006 the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport announced that the use of pre-randomisation in study designs is admissible and not in conflict with the Dutch Medical Research in Human Subjects Act. With pre-randomisation, the conventional sequence of obtaining informed consent followed by randomisation is reversed. According to the original pre-randomisation design (Zelen design), participants are randomised before they are asked to consent; after randomisation, only participants in the experimental group are asked to consent to treatment and effect measurement. In the past, pre-randomisation has seldom been used, and when it was, it was often under the wrong circumstances. Awareness regarding the ethical, legal and methodological objections to pre-randomisation is increasing. About a decade ago, we illustrated the applicability and acceptability of pre-randomisation by means of a fictitious heroin provision trial. In general, pre-randomisation is justified if valid evaluation of the effects of an intervention is impossible using a conventional randomised design, e.g., if knowledge of the intervention may lead to non-compliance or drop-out in the control group, or when the intervention is an educational programme. Other requirements for pre-randomisation include the following: the study has a clinically relevant objective, it is likely that the study will lead to important new insights, the informed consent procedure bears no potential harm to participants, at least standard care is offered to participants in the control group, and the approval of an independent research ethics committee is obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18837179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd        ISSN: 0028-2162


  7 in total

1.  Prevention of recurrent sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with cost-benefit and effectiveness evaluation.

Authors:  Iris Arends; Jac Jl van der Klink; Ute Bültmann
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  Enhancing a sustainable healthy working life: design of a clustered randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wendy Koolhaas; Sandra Brouwer; Johan W Groothoff; Jac Jl van der Klink
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  The impact of a cancer Survivorship Care Plan on gynecological cancer patient and health care provider reported outcomes (ROGY Care): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Kim A H Nicolaije; Maria C Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Olga Husson; Nicole P M Ezendam; Erik A Boss; Ralph H M Hermans; Karin C M Engelhart; Joke E Haartsen; Brenda M Pijlman; Harrie W H Feijen; Helena J M M Mertens; Willem E Nolting; Johannes J van Beek; Jan A Roukema; Roy F P M Kruitwagen
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Effectiveness of a problem-solving based intervention to prolong the working life of ageing workers.

Authors:  Wendy Koolhaas; Johan W Groothoff; Michiel R de Boer; Jac J L van der Klink; Sandra Brouwer
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Impact of a web-based treatment decision aid for early-stage prostate cancer on shared decision-making and health outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maarten Cuypers; Romy E D Lamers; Paul J M Kil; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Marieke de Vries
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  The effectiveness of "Exercise on Prescription" in stimulating physical activity among women in ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen Hosper; Marije Deutekom; Karien Stronks
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Differences in treatment choices between prostate cancer patients using a decision aid and patients receiving care as usual: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Romy E D Lamers; Maarten Cuypers; Marieke de Vries; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; J L H Ruud Bosch; Paul J M Kil
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 4.226

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.