Natasha Fernandes1, Dianne Bryant2, Lauren Griffith2, Mohamed El-Rabbany2, Nisha M Fernandes2, Crystal Kean2, Jacquelyn Marsh2, Siddhi Mathur2, Rebecca Moyer2, Clare J Reade2, John J Riva2, Lyndsay Somerville2, Neera Bhatnagar2. 1. Faculty of Medicine (Natasha Fernandes, Mathur), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bryant, Marsh, Moyer) and Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (Bryant), The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Bryant, Griffith), Department of Medicine (Nisha Fernandes), Health Sciences Library (Bhatnagar), Department of Family Medicine (Riva) and Division of Gynecologic Oncology (Reade), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Dentistry (El-Rabbany), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; School of Medical and Applied Sciences (Kean), Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (Somerville), London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ont. natasha.fernandes31@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Medicine (Natasha Fernandes, Mathur), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bryant, Marsh, Moyer) and Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (Bryant), The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Bryant, Griffith), Department of Medicine (Nisha Fernandes), Health Sciences Library (Bhatnagar), Department of Family Medicine (Riva) and Division of Gynecologic Oncology (Reade), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Dentistry (El-Rabbany), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; School of Medical and Applied Sciences (Kean), Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (Somerville), London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether participation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), irrespective of assigned treatment, is harmful or beneficial to participants. We compared outcomes for patients with the same diagnoses who did ("insiders") and did not ("outsiders") enter RCTs, without regard to the specific therapies received for their respective diagnoses. METHODS: By searching the MEDLINE (1966-2010), Embase (1980-2010), CENTRAL (1960-2010) and PsycINFO (1880-2010) databases, we identified 147 studies that reported the health outcomes of "insiders" and a group of parallel or consecutive "outsiders" within the same time period. We prepared a narrative review and, as appropriate, meta-analyses of patients' outcomes. RESULTS: We found no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcomes between "insiders" and "outsiders" in the 23 studies in which the experimental intervention was ineffective (standard mean difference in continuous outcomes -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1 to 0.04) or in the 7 studies in which the experimental intervention was effective and was received by both "insiders" and "outsiders" (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13). However, in 9 studies in which an effective intervention was received only by "insiders," the "outsiders" experienced significantly worse health outcomes (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.12). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence to support clinically important overall harm or benefit arising from participation in RCTs. This conclusion refutes earlier claims that trial participants are at increased risk of harm.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether participation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), irrespective of assigned treatment, is harmful or beneficial to participants. We compared outcomes for patients with the same diagnoses who did ("insiders") and did not ("outsiders") enter RCTs, without regard to the specific therapies received for their respective diagnoses. METHODS: By searching the MEDLINE (1966-2010), Embase (1980-2010), CENTRAL (1960-2010) and PsycINFO (1880-2010) databases, we identified 147 studies that reported the health outcomes of "insiders" and a group of parallel or consecutive "outsiders" within the same time period. We prepared a narrative review and, as appropriate, meta-analyses of patients' outcomes. RESULTS: We found no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcomes between "insiders" and "outsiders" in the 23 studies in which the experimental intervention was ineffective (standard mean difference in continuous outcomes -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1 to 0.04) or in the 7 studies in which the experimental intervention was effective and was received by both "insiders" and "outsiders" (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13). However, in 9 studies in which an effective intervention was received only by "insiders," the "outsiders" experienced significantly worse health outcomes (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.12). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence to support clinically important overall harm or benefit arising from participation in RCTs. This conclusion refutes earlier claims that trial participants are at increased risk of harm.
Authors: F Feit; M M Brooks; G Sopko; N M Keller; A Rosen; R Krone; P B Berger; R Shemin; M J Attubato; D O Williams; R Frye; K M Detre Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: P Urban; J C Stauffer; D Bleed; N Khatchatrian; W Amann; O Bertel; M van den Brand; N Danchin; U Kaufmann; B Meier; J Machecourt; M Pfisterer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J Biederman; D B Herzog; T M Rivinus; G P Harper; R A Ferber; J F Rosenbaum; J S Harmatz; R Tondorf; P J Orsulak; J J Schildkraut Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 1985-02 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: M Underwood; D Ashby; D Carnes; E Castelnuovo; P Cross; G Harding; E Hennessy; L Letley; J Martin; S Mt-Isa; S Parsons; A Spencer; M Vickers; K Whyte Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Ane B Vind; Hanne E Andersen; Kirsten D Pedersen; Torben Jørgensen; Peter Schwarz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Elizabeth E Foglia; Tracy L Nolen; Sara B DeMauro; Abhik Das; Edward F Bell; Barbara J Stoll; Barbara Schmidt Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yip Han Chin; Cheng Han Ng; Nicholas Ws Chew; Gwyneth Kong; Wen Hui Lim; Darren Jun Hao Tan; Kai En Chan; Ansel Tang; Daniel Q Huang; Mark Y Chan; Gemma Figtree; Jiong-Wei Wang; Asim Shabbir; Chin Meng Khoo; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong; Dan Yock Young; Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui; Mazen Noureddin; Arun Sanyal; David E Cummings; Nicholas Syn; Mark Dhinesh Muthiah Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-09-29