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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Freedland, 2014, Design and conduct of randomized behavioral clinical trials: purpose-guided trial design, Int J Behav Med, 21, S1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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