Literature DB >> 23078493

The prompted optional randomization trial: a new design for comparative effectiveness research.

James Flory1, Jason Karlawish.   

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for medical evidence because randomization provides the best-known protection against confounding of results. Randomization has practical and ethical problems that limit the number of trials that can be conducted, however. A different method for collecting clinical data retains the statistically useful properties of randomization without incurring its practical and ethical challenges. A computerized prompt introduces a random element into clinical decision-making that can be instantly overridden if it conflicts with optimal patient care. This creates a weak form of randomization that still eliminates the effect of all confounders, can be carried out without disturbing routine clinical care, and arguably will not require research-grade informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23078493      PMCID: PMC3519302          DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  8 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Is informed consent always necessary for randomized, controlled trials? .

Authors:  R D Truog; W Robinson; A Randolph; A Morris
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-03-11       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

Review 4.  Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed.

Authors:  Olaf H Klungel; Edwin P Martens; Bruce M Psaty; Diederik E Grobbee; Sean D Sullivan; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Hubert G M Leufkens; A de Boer
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Instrumental variables: application and limitations.

Authors:  Edwin P Martens; Wiebe R Pestman; Anthonius de Boer; Svetlana V Belitser; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Health care reform and the need for comparative-effectiveness research.

Authors:  Alvin I Mushlin; Hassan Ghomrawi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.

Authors:  B Freedman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships.

Authors:  Jeremy A Rassen; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Murray A Mittleman; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 6.437

  8 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review.

Authors:  James H Flory; Alvin I Mushlin; Zachary I Goodman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  How to obtain informed consent for research.

Authors:  Sara Manti; Amelia Licari
Journal:  Breathe (Sheff)       Date:  2018-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.