The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of more than one intervention in the same randomised controlled trial can be achieved using a parallel group design. However this requires increased sample size and can be inefficient, especially if there is also interest in considering combinations of the interventions. An alternative may be a factorial trial, where for two interventions participants are allocated to receive neither intervention, one or the other, or both. Factorial trials require special considerations, however, particularly at the design and analysis stages. DISCUSSION: Using a 2 x 2 factorial trial as an example, we present a number of issues that should be considered when planning a factorial trial. The main design issue is that of sample size. Factorial trials are most often powered to detect the main effects of interventions, since adequate power to detect plausible interactions requires greatly increased sample sizes. The main analytical issues relate to the investigation of main effects and the interaction between the interventions in appropriate regression models. Presentation of results should reflect the analytical strategy with an emphasis on the principal research questions. We also give an example of how baseline and follow-up data should be presented. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the design, analytical and presentational issues covered. SUMMARY: Difficulties in interpreting the results of factorial trials if an influential interaction is observed is the cost of the potential for efficient, simultaneous consideration of two or more interventions. Factorial trials can in principle be designed to have adequate power to detect realistic interactions, and in any case they are the only design that allows such effects to be investigated.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07283-5 · Cited by 734
Cited by
Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies
Davey Smith, G., & Hemani, G. (2014) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddu328 · Cited by 4,677
Intrapleural Use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator and DNase in Pleural Infection
Rahman, N. M., Maskell, N. A., West, A., Teoh, R., Arnold, A., Mackinlay, C., Peckham, D., Davies, C. W. H., Ali, N., Kinnear, W., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1012740 · Cited by 855
Lespérance, F., Frasure-Smith, N., Koszycki, D., Laliberté, M.-A., van Zyl, L. T., Baker, B., Swenson, J. R., Ghatavi, K., Abramson, B. L., Dorian, P., et al. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.4.367 · Cited by 658
Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L. (2012) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032 · Cited by 582
Wolf, J., Prüss‐Ustün, A., Cumming, O., Bartram, J., Bonjour, S., Cairncross, S., Clasen, T., Colford, J. M., Curtis, V., De France, J., et al. (2014) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/tmi.12331 · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Montgomery, A. A., Peters, T. J., & Little, P.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2003-11-24
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-26
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104895625
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-3-26
- The paper
- Montgomery, A. A., Peters, T. J., & Little, P. (2003). Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-26
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.