Literature DB >> 7058834

Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials.

H Sacks, T C Chalmers, H Smith.   

Abstract

To compare the use of randomized controls (RCTs) and historical controls (HCTs) for clinical trials, we searched the literature for therapies studied by both methods. We found six therapies for which 50 RCTs and 56 HCTs were reported. Forty-four of 56 HCTs (79 percent) found the therapy better than the control regimen, but only 10 of 50 RCTs (20 percent) agreed. For each therapy, the treated patients in RCTs and HCTs of the same therapy was largely due to differences in outcome for the control groups, with HCT control patients generally doing worse than the RCT control groups. Adjustment of the outcomes of the HCTs for prognostic factors, when possible, did not appreciably change the results. The data suggest that biases in patient selection may irretrievably weight the outcome of HCts in favor of new therapies. RCTs may miss clinically important benefits because of inadequate attention to sample size. The predictive value of each might be improved by reconsidering the use of p less than 0.05 as the significance level for all types of clinical trials, and by the use of confidence intervals around estimates of treatment effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7058834     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  141 in total

Review 1.  Which guidelines can we trust?: Assessing strength of evidence behind recommendations for clinical practice.

Authors:  A Liberati; R Buzzetti; R Grilli; N Magrini; S Minozzi
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-04

2.  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

3.  How to assess new treatments.

Authors:  R Slinger; D Moher
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-03

Review 4.  Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise?

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-01

5.  Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study.

Authors:  S Barton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-07-29

6.  Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research.

Authors:  B Djulbegovic
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 7.  Rare diseases and the assessment of intervention: what sorts of clinical trials can we use?

Authors:  B Wilcken
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.982

8.  Continuous quality improvement and controlled trials are not mutually exclusive.

Authors:  H I Goldberg
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Problems with UK government's risk sharing scheme for assessing drugs for multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Cathie L M Sudlow; Carl E Counsell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-15

10.  Shortcomings in the clinical evaluation of new drugs: acute myeloid leukemia as paradigm.

Authors:  Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 22.113

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.