P Cuijpers1, I A Cristea2. 1. Department of Clinical Psychology,VU University Amsterdam,The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Babeş-Bolyai University,Cluj-Napoca,Romania.
Abstract
AIMS: Suppose you are the developer of a new therapy for a mental health problem or you have several years of experience working with such a therapy, and you would like to prove that it is effective. Randomised trials have become the gold standard to prove that interventions are effective, and they are used by treatment guidelines and policy makers to decide whether or not to adopt, implement or fund a therapy. METHODS: You would want to do such a randomised trial to get your therapy disseminated, but in reality your clinical experience already showed you that the therapy works. How could you do a trial in order to optimise the chance of finding a positive effect? RESULTS: Methods that can help include a strong allegiance towards the therapy, anything that increases expectations and hope in participants, making use of the weak spots of randomised trials (risk of bias), small sample sizes and waiting list control groups (but not comparisons with existing interventions). And if all that fails one can always not publish the outcomes and wait for positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: Several methods are available to help you show that your therapy is effective, even when it is not.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Suppose you are the developer of a new therapy for a mental health problem or you have several years of experience working with such a therapy, and you would like to prove that it is effective. Randomised trials have become the gold standard to prove that interventions are effective, and they are used by treatment guidelines and policy makers to decide whether or not to adopt, implement or fund a therapy. METHODS: You would want to do such a randomised trial to get your therapy disseminated, but in reality your clinical experience already showed you that the therapy works. How could you do a trial in order to optimise the chance of finding a positive effect? RESULTS: Methods that can help include a strong allegiance towards the therapy, anything that increases expectations and hope in participants, making use of the weak spots of randomised trials (risk of bias), small sample sizes and waiting list control groups (but not comparisons with existing interventions). And if all that fails one can always not publish the outcomes and wait for positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: Several methods are available to help you show that your therapy is effective, even when it is not.
Entities:
Keywords:
Control groups; randomised trial; researcher allegiance; risk of bias
Authors: Erick H Turner; Annette M Matthews; Eftihia Linardatos; Robert A Tell; Robert Rosenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T A Furukawa; H Noma; D M Caldwell; M Honyashiki; K Shinohara; H Imai; P Chen; V Hunot; R Churchill Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Erlend Faltinsen; Adnan Todorovac; Laura Staxen Bruun; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Christian Gluud; Mickey T Kongerslev; Erik Simonsen; Ole Jakob Storebø Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: Franziska Holtdirk; Anja Mehnert; Mario Weiss; Johannes Mayer; Björn Meyer; Peter Bröde; Maren Claus; Carsten Watzl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eva Rothermund; Harald Gündel; Edit Rottler; Michael Hölzer; Dorothea Mayer; Monika Rieger; Reinhold Kilian Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 3.295