Cited by 104Ethics in Clinical ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome

Open access
Vist, Gunn Elisabeth, Hagen, Kâre Birger, Devereaux, P J, Bryant, Dianne, Kristoffersen, Doris Tove, Oxman, Andrew David·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the outcomes of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with those in comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, reference lists from eligible articles, medical journals, and study authors. REVIEW METHODS: RCTs and cohort studies that evaluated the clinical outcomes of participants in RCTs and comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment. RESULTS: Five RCTs (six comparisons) and 50 cohort studies (85 comparisons) provided data on 31,140 patients treated in RCTs and 20,380 comparable patients treated outside RCTs. In the five RCTs, in which patients were given the option of participating or not, the comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions considered. 73 dichotomous outcomes were compared, of which 59 reported no statistically significant differences. For patients treated within RCTs, 10 comparisons reported significantly better outcomes and four reported significantly worse outcomes. Significantly heterogeneity was found (I2 = 89%) among the comparisons of 73 dichotomous outcomes; none of our a priori explanatory factors helped explain this heterogeneity. The 18 comparisons of continuous outcomes showed no significant differences in heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The overall pooled estimate for continuous outcomes of the effect of participating in an RCT was not significant (standardised mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSION: No strong evidence was found of a harmful or beneficial effect of participating in RCTs compared with receiving the same or similar treatment outside such trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1175

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In a definitive trial, information about losses and exclusions after randomisation is crucial for interpreting generalisability, as participants who are excluded after allocation are unlikely to be representative of all participants in the study.

    “In a definitive trial this information is crucial for interpreting generalisability, as participants who are excluded after allocation are unlikely to be representative of all participants in the study.74”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vist, G. E., Hagen, K. B., Devereaux, P. J., Bryant, D., Kristoffersen, D. T., & Oxman, A. D.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Vist, Gunn Elisabeth
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-05-19
Volume
330
Issue
7501
Pages
1175
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2162915723
Cited by
104
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
McMaster University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, clinical trial participation, non-participants, trial heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Humans, Risk Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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