CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 427Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceDelphi Technique in Research

Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials

Open access
Devereaux, P J, Bhandari, Mohit, Clarke, Mike, Montori, Victor M, Cook, Deborah J, Yusuf, Salim, Sackett, David L, Cinà, Claudio S +5 more·2005·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88PMC PMC543877
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although conventional randomised controlled trials are widely recognised as the most reliable method to evaluate pharmacological interventions,1 2 scepticism about their role in nonpharmacological interventions (such as surgery) remains.3-6 Conventional randomised controlled trials typically randomise participants to one of two intervenions (A or B) and individual clinicians give intervention A to some participants and B to others. An alternative trial design, the expertise based randomised controlled trial, randomises participants to clinicians with expertise in intervention A or clinicians with expertise in intervention B, and the clinicians perform only the procedure they are expert in. We present evidence to support our argument that increased use of the expertise based design will enhance the validity, applicability, feasibility, and ethical integrity of randomised controlled trials in surgery, as well as in other areas. We focus on established surgical interventions rather than new surgical procedures in which clinicians have not established expertise.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88

Cites

32 of 32 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: 1

  1. [12]Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Walter S, Sprague S, Guyatt G. Participating surgeons' experience with and beliefs in the procedures evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Trials 2004;1: 225. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Devereaux, P. J., Bhandari, M., Clarke, M., Montori, V. M., Cook, D. J., Yusuf, S., Sackett, D. L., Cinà, C. S., Walter, S. D., Haynes, B., Schünemann, H. J., Norman, G. R., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Devereaux, P J
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-01-06
Volume
330
Issue
7482
Pages
88
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
DOI
10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88
PMC
PMC543877
OpenAlex
W2096968635
Cited by
427
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 23
FWCI
38.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.bmj.org/licenses/tdm/1.0/terms-and-conditions.html (tdm)
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
surgical treatment, trial design, clinician expertise, trial validity, applicability, feasibility, ethical integrity, non-pharmacological treatment
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Ethics, Medical, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Specialization, General Surgery, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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