Literature DB >> 6838297

Sensitivity and specificity of clinical trials. Randomized v historical controls.

H S Sacks, T C Chalmers, H Smith.   

Abstract

The relative accuracy of randomized control trials (RCTs) and historical control trials (HCTs) in determining effective therapies has not been compared since there is no external verification of efficacy. We reviewed six therapies studied by both methods. Most HCTs concluded therapy was better than control, but few RCTs agreed. We calculated sensitivity and specificity for each type of trial by combining published results with all possible combinations of effectiveness. The sensitivity of HCTs was 0.80 to 1.00 (mean, 0.90) and specificity was 0.0 to 0.27 (mean, 0.11). The sensitivity of RCTs was 0.0 to 0.27 (mean, 0.12) and specificity was 0.67 to 1.00 (mean, 0.88). Defects of RCTs are more easily corrected than those of HCTs. Readers should consider trial design and the probability of errors when deciding how much credence to give to a clinical trial.

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6838297

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  10 in total

1.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

Authors:  J Concato; N Shah; R I Horwitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Users' guide to the surgical literature. Case-control studies in surgical journals.

Authors:  Alexandra Mihailovic; Chaim M Bell; David R Urbach
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 3.  [Clinical studies in oncology. Relevance, design, ethical considerations].

Authors:  B Wörmann; G Wulf; W Hiddemann
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-03-15

4.  Government health policy and the diffusion of new medical devices.

Authors:  B J Hillman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Monitoring the diffusion of a technology: coronary artery bypass surgery in Ontario.

Authors:  G M Anderson; J Lomas
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Dheeraj Shah; Hps Sachdev
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.251

Review 7.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.

Authors:  Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Gunn E Vist; Antje Timmer; Regina Kunz; Elie A Akl; Holger Schünemann; Matthias Briel; Alain J Nordmann; Silvia Pregno; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-04-13

Review 8.  Sample size: how many patients are necessary?

Authors:  P M Fayers; D Machin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use an article about a randomized trial?

Authors:  Brian Chan; Bernd Robioneck; Anders Joensson
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  Biopsy vs. extensive resection for first recurrence of glioblastoma: is a prospective clinical trial warranted?

Authors:  Christopher Dardis; Lynn Ashby; William Shapiro; Nader Sanai
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.