Cited by 770Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials

Open access
Frieden, Thomas R.·2017·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

A core principle of good public health practice is to base all policy decisions on the highest-quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived. 1 Determining whether data meet these conditions is difficult; uncertainty can lead to inaction by clinicians and public health decision makers.3][4][5][6][7][8] In this article, I describe the use of RCTs and alternative (and sometimes superior) data sources from the vantage point of public health, illustrate key limitations of RCTs, and suggest ways to improve the use of multiple data sources for health decision making.In large, well-designed trials, randomization evenly distributes known and unknown factors among control and intervention groups, reducing the potential for confounding.Despite their strengths, RCTs have substantial limitations.Although they can have strong internal validity, RCTs sometimes lack external validity; generalizations of findings outside the study population may be invalid. 2,4,6CTs usually do not have sufficient study periods or population sizes to assess duration of treatment effect (e.g., waning immunity of vaccines) or to identify rare but serious adverse effects of treatment, which often become evident during postmarketing surveillance and long-term follow-up but could not be practically assessed in an RCT.The increasingly high costs and time constraints of RCTs can also lead to reliance on surrogate markers that may not correlate well with the outcome of interest.Selection of high-risk groups increases the likelihood of having adequate numbers of end points, but these groups may not be relevant to the broader target populations.These limitations and the fact that RCTs often take years to plan, implement, and analyze reduce the ability of RCTs to keep pace with clinical innovations; new products and standards of care are often developed before earlier models complete evaluation.These limitations also affect the use of RCTs for urgent health issues, such as infectious disease outbreaks, for which public health decisions must be made quickly on the basis of limited and often imperfect available data.RCTs are also limited in their ability to assess the individualized effect of treatment, as can result from differences in surgical techniques, and are generally impractical for rare diseases.Many other data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action.Observational studies, including assessments of results from the From Atlanta, GA.

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 · 10.1056/nejmra1614394

Cites

82 of 82 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?

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: 16

  1. Woodcock J, Ware JH, Miller PW, Mc- Murray JJV, Harrington DP, Drazen JM. Clinical trial series. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 2167.
  2. Irving M, Eramudugolla R, Cherbuin N, Anstey KJ. A critical review of grading systems: implications for public health policy. Eval Health Prof 2016 May 10 (Epub ahead of print).
  3. Prentice RL, Langer RD, Stefanick Health Initiative observational and clini- cal trial data on postmenopausal hor- mone treatment and cardiovascular dis- ease. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 589-99.
  4. Grohskopf LA, Olsen SJ, Sokolow LZ, et al. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommenda- tions of the Advisory Committee on Im- munization Practices (ACIP) -United States, 2014-15 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014; 63: 691-7.
  5. Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Br Med J 1948; 2: 769-82.
  6. Fox W. Self-administration of medica- ments: a review of published work and a study of the problems. Bull Int Union Tu- berc 1962; 32: 307-31.
  7. Xu JQ, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Bas- tian BA. Deaths: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016; 64(2): 1-119.
  8. Nwankwo T, Yoon SS, Burt V, Gu Q. Hypertension among adults in the United States: National Health and Nutrition Ex- amination Survey, 2011-2012. NCHS Data Brief 2013; 133: 1-8.
  9. Institute of Medicine. Strategies to reduce sodium intake in the United States. Washington, DC: National Acade- mies Press, 2010.
  10. Willett W. Nutritional epidemiology: monographs in epidemiology and biosta- tistics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2013.
  11. Woolever DR. The art and science of clinical decision making. Fam Pract Man- ag 2008; 15: 31-6.
  12. Thall PF, Wathen JK. Practical Bayes- ian adaptive randomisation in clinical tri- als. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 859-66.
  13. Moss AJ, Francis CW, Ryan D. Collab- orative clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 789-91.
  14. Khan M, Qureshi AI. Factors associ- ated with increased rates of post-proce- dural stroke or death following carotid artery stent placement: a systematic re- view. J Vasc Interv Neurol 2014; 7: 11-20.
  15. Pneumocystis pneumonia -Los An- geles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981; 30: 250-2.
  16. Fleming A. On the antibacterial ac- tion of cultures of a Penicillium, with spe- cial reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. Br J Exp Pathol 1929; 10: 226-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frieden, T. R.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Frieden, Thomas R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-08-03
Volume
377
Issue
5
Pages
465-475
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2740060821
Cited by
770
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
18.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
health decision-making, randomized controlled trials, generalizability, post-marketing surveillance, surrogate markers, observational studies, evidence-based public health policy, infectious disease outbreaks, rare diseases, individual treatment effects
MeSH terms
Clinical Studies as Topic, Decision Making, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, Research Design, Sodium, Dietary, Epidemiologic Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Directly Observed Therapy

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