Cited by 292Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEthics in Clinical Research

Randomized controlled trials – a matter of design

Open access
Siepmann, Timo, Spieth, Peter Markus, Kubasch, Anne Sophie, Penzlin, Ana Isabel, Illigens, Ben Min-Woo, Barlinn, Kristian·2016·Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the hallmark of evidence-based medicine and form the basis for translating research data into clinical practice. This review summarizes commonly applied designs and quality indicators of RCTs to provide guidance in interpreting and critically evaluating clinical research data. It further reflects on the principle of equipoise and its practical applicability to clinical science with an emphasis on critical care and neurological research. We performed a review of educational material, review articles, methodological studies, and published clinical trials using the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most relevant recommendations regarding design, conduction, and reporting of RCTs may include the following: 1) clinically relevant end points should be defined a priori, and an unbiased analysis and report of the study results should be warranted, 2) both significant and nonsignificant results should be objectively reported and published, 3) structured study design and performance as indicated in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement should be employed as well as registration in a public trial database, 4) potential conflicts of interest and funding sources should be disclaimed in study report or publication, and 5) in the comparison of experimental treatment with standard care, preplanned interim analyses during an ongoing RCT can aid in maintaining clinical equipoise by assessing benefit, harm, or futility, thus allowing decision on continuation or termination of the trial.

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 · 10.2147/ndt.s101938

Cites

62 of 62 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

4 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siepmann, T., Spieth, P. M., Kubasch, A. S., Penzlin, A. I., Illigens, B. M.-W., & Barlinn, K.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Dresden International University (DE)
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Siepmann, Timo
Venue
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
Published
2016-06
Volume
12
Pages
1341
ISSN
  • 1176-6328 (ISSN-L)
  • 1178-2021
OpenAlex
W2410316792
Cited by
292
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Technische Universität Dresden
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, trial design, critical appraisal, equipoise, CONSORT statement, clinical trial registration, conflicts of interest, interim analysis, clinical trial reporting, end points, critical care research, brain research

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