Cited by 218Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions: recommendations of an NIH expert panel

Open access
Freedland, Kenneth E., King, Abby C., Ambrosius, Walter T., Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Mohr, David C., Czajkowski, Susan M., Thabane, Lehana, Collins, Linda M. +8 more·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives To provide recommendations for the selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions.Study design and setting The National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research convened an expert panel to critically review the literature on control or comparison groups for behavioral trials and to develop strategies for improving comparator choices and for resolving controversies and disagreements about comparators.Results The panel developed a Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials. The model indicates that the optimal comparator is the one that best serves the primary purpose of the trial but that the optimal comparator's limitations and barriers to its use must also be taken into account.Conclusion We developed best practice recommendations for the selection of comparators for health-related behavioral trials. Use of the Pragmatic Model for Comparator Selection in Health-Related Behavioral Trials can improve the comparator selection process and help resolve disagreements about comparator choices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.011

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Attention control conditions can have unintended detrimental effects.

    “We considered an alternative comparison condition to control for attention, but it would not reflect current clinical realities and attention control conditions can have unintended detrimental effects [26 -28].”

    From Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Research ethics section says comparator conditions can pose risks and harms to participants, including risks from exposure to the comparator itself. The paper identifies attention-control conditions as comparators in Choosing the optimal comparator, but our copy does not specifically say that attention controls can have unintended detrimental effects. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The EUC condition consisted of fatigue-specific educational materials which exceeds typical clinical offerings.

    “We compared REVITALIZE to an EUC condition consisting of fatigue-specific educational materials which exceeds typical clinical offerings [26,27]”

    From Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The 'Choosing the optimal comparator' section discusses usual care and other comparator types in general, but does not describe the REVITALIZE trial or its EUC condition. Searches for REVITALIZE, fatigue-specific educational materials, and enhanced usual care found no passage establishing what the condition contained or whether it exceeded typical clinical offerings. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies with non-therapeutic control conditions can establish the impact of non-specific factors but cannot provide the highest comparison strength.

    “Studies with non-therapeutic control conditions are still scientifically valuable as they can establish the impact of non-specific factors12, but they cannot provide the highest comparison strength.”
  • There is no single control condition that is appropriate for every study at every stage of the research process.

    “There is no single control condition that is appropriate for every study at every stage of the research process11,12,39.”
  • Clarifying the universe of mHealth control condition types can help highlight the scientific questions each type can reasonably address and comparison strength each type provides.

    “Clarifying the universe of mHealth control condition types can help highlight the scientific questions each type can reasonably address and comparison strength each type provides12.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Freedland KE. Design and conduct of randomized behavioral clinical trials: Purpose-guided trial design. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2014; 21: S1.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freedland, K. E., King, A. C., Ambrosius, W. T., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mohr, D. C., Czajkowski, S. M., Thabane, L., Collins, L. M., Rebok, G. W., Treweek, S. P., Cook, T. D., Edinger, J. D., Stoney, C. M., Campo, R. A., Young-Hyman, D., & Riley, W. T.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • National Jewish Health (US)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Freedland, Kenneth E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
110
Pages
74-81
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2918272982
Cited by
218
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6
FWCI
15.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks Open (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 HL999999)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL147862, R01HL119286)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
comparator selection, control groups, randomized controlled trials, best practice recommendations, trial design
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Psychotherapy, Research Design, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review