BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research. METHODS: The diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples. RESULTS: A wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Only the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research. METHODS: The diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples. RESULTS: A wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Only the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.
Authors: Dirk Bassler; Victor M Montori; Matthias Briel; Paul Glasziou; Stephen D Walter; Tim Ramsay; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Deepak L Bhatt; Gregg W Stone; Kenneth W Mahaffey; C Michael Gibson; P Gabriel Steg; Christian W Hamm; Matthew J Price; Sergio Leonardi; Dianne Gallup; Ezio Bramucci; Peter W Radke; Petr Widimský; Frantisek Tousek; Jeffrey Tauth; Douglas Spriggs; Brent T McLaurin; Dominick J Angiolillo; Philippe Généreux; Tiepu Liu; Jayne Prats; Meredith Todd; Simona Skerjanec; Harvey D White; Robert A Harrington Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachel E Sherman; Steven A Anderson; Gerald J Dal Pan; Gerry W Gray; Thomas Gross; Nina L Hunter; Lisa LaVange; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Peter W Marks; Melissa A Robb; Jeffrey Shuren; Robert Temple; Janet Woodcock; Lilly Q Yue; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Eva Lonn; Prem Pais; Jackie Bosch; Patricio López-Jaramillo; Jun Zhu; Denis Xavier; Alvaro Avezum; Lawrence A Leiter; Leopoldo S Piegas; Alexander Parkhomenko; Matyas Keltai; Katalin Keltai; Karen Sliwa; Irina Chazova; Ron J G Peters; Claes Held; Khalid Yusoff; Basil S Lewis; Petr Jansky; Kamlesh Khunti; William D Toff; Christopher M Reid; John Varigos; Jose L Accini; Robert McKelvie; Janice Pogue; Hyejung Jung; Lisheng Liu; Rafael Diaz; Antonio Dans; Gilles Dagenais Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J Savović; He Jones; Dg Altman; Rj Harris; P Jűni; J Pildal; B Als-Nielsen; Em Balk; C Gluud; Ll Gluud; Jpa Ioannidis; Kf Schulz; R Beynon; N Welton; L Wood; D Moher; Jj Deeks; Jac Sterne Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sophia von Martial; Tobias J Brix; Luisa Klotz; Philipp Neuhaus; Klaus Berger; Clemens Warnke; Sven G Meuth; Heinz Wiendl; Martin Dugas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240