CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth and Medical Research Impacts

Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Prescott, Counsell, Gillespie, Grant, Russell, Kiauka, Colthart, Ross +2 more·1999·Health Technology Assessment
DOI 10.3310/hta3200
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS.Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment.Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects.These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care.It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Group and funded as project number 93/43/02.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein.In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee.This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

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 · 10.3310/hta3200

Cites

291 of 291 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: 161

  1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodo- logical quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
  2. Easterbrook PJ, Matthews DR. Fate of research studies. J R Soc Med 1992;85:71-6. References
  3. Ford I. Angina clinical trial methodology [review]. Postgrad Med J 1991;67 (suppl 3):S2-8.
  4. Talley NJ. A critique of therapeutic trials in Helicobacter pylori-positive functional dyspepsia [review]. Gastroenterology 1994;106:1174-83.
  5. Carew BD, Ahn SA, Boichot HD, Dierenfeldt BJ, Dolan NA, Edens TR, et al. Recruitment strategies in the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD): strategies for screening and enrolment in two concurrent but separate trials. Control Clin Trials 1992;13:325-38.
  6. Silagy CA, Jewell D. Review of 39 years of random- ized controlled trials in the British Journal of General Practice [review]. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:359-63.
  7. Maynard C, Selker HP, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL, Schmid CH, Califf, RM, et al. The exclusion of women from clinical trials of thrombolytic therapy: implications for developing the thrombolytic predictive instrument database. Med Decis Making 1995;15:38-43.
  8. Csernansky JG, Newcomer JW, Miller LS, Faustman WO. Clinical factors that may confound the assess- ment of drug efficacy [review]. Psychopharmacol Bull 1991;27:231-5.
  9. Saver JL. Coping with an embarrassment of riches. How stroke centers may participate in multiple, concurrent clinical stroke trials. Stroke 1995; 26:1289-92.
  10. Greenhouse JB, Meyer MM. A note on random- ization and selection bias in maintenance therapy clinical trials [review]. Psychopharmacol Bull 1991;27:225-9.
  11. Klein DF. Improvement of Phase III psychotropic drug trials by intensive Phase II work [review]. Neuropsychopharmacology 1991;4:251-71.
  12. Wilensky AJ. Protocol design [review]. Epilepsy Res Suppl 1993;10:107-13.
  13. Silagy CA, Jewell D, Mant D. An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991 [see comments]. J Family Pract 1994;39:236-42.
  14. Klein KB. Controlled treatment trials in the irritable bowel syndrome: a critique [review]. Gastroenterology 1988;95:232-41.
  15. Simon R. A decade of progress in statistical methodology for clinical trials [review]. Stat Med 1991;10:1789-817.
  16. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations [review]. Control Clin Trials 1993;14:183-97.
  17. Raju TN, Langenberg P, Sen A, Aldana O. How much 'better' is good enough? The magnitude of treatment effect in clinical trials. Am J Dis Child 1992;146:407-11.
  18. Vandekerckhove P, O'Donovan PA, Lilford RJ, Harada TW. Infertility treatment: from cookery to science. The epidemiology of randomised controlled trials [review]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:1005-36.
  19. Lilford RJ, Johnson N. The alpha and beta errors in randomised trials [letter]. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:780-1.
  20. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials [review]. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:23-40.
  21. Fayers PM, Machin D. Sample size: how many patients are necessary [editorial review]? Br J Cancer 1995;72:1-9.
  22. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials [review]. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993;703:314-40.
  23. Melnikow J, Kiefe C. Patient compliance and medical research: issues in methodology. J Gen Intern Med 1994;9:96-105.
  24. Schechtman KB, Gordon ME. A comprehensive algorithm for determining whether a run-in strategy will be a cost-effective design modification in a randomized clinical trial [review]. Stat Med 1993;12:111-28.
  25. Balk RA, Bone RC. Methodological issues in the design and implementation of controlled clinical trials in severe sepsis and septic shock. Discussion about the trial protocol of supplemental immuno- globulin therapy in sepsis and septic shock. Theor Surg 1994;9:32-7.
  26. Fine HA. The basis for current treatment recommendations for malignant gliomas [review]. J Neurooncol 1994;20:111-20.
  27. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Time for changes in the design, analysis, and reporting of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials [see comments] [review]. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:140-9.
  28. Ratain JS, Hochberg MC. Clinical trials. A guide to understanding methodology and interpreting results [review]. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:131-9.
  29. Blair PS, Silman AJ. Can clinical trials in rheumatology be improved [review]? Curr Opin Rheumatol 1991;3:272-9.
  30. Maxton DG, Morris J, Whorwell PJ. Improving clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome: some practical aspects. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1992;4:337-41.
  31. Easterbrook PJ, Matthews DR. Fate of research studies. J R Soc Med 1992;85:71-6.
  32. Nixon DW. Special aspects of cancer prevention trials [review]. Cancer 1994;74(9 suppl):2683-6.
  33. Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical trials: analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design [see comments]. Stat Med 1992;11:1685-704.
  34. Agar MH. Qualitative research methods: volume 2. Speaking of ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1986.
  35. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery [see comments]. Surgery 1994;115:707-12.
  36. Hunninghake DB, Darby CA, Probstfield JL. Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography [review]. Control Clin Trials 1987;8(4 suppl):6-30S.
  37. Taylor KM, Feldstein ML, Skeel RT, Pandya KJ, Ng P, Carbone PP. Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: results of a survey of the 1737 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group investigators. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:1796-805.
  38. Taylor KM, Shapiro M, Soskolne CL, Margolese RG. Physician response to informed consent regulations for randomized clinical trials. Cancer 1987;60: 1415-22.
  39. Chang RW, Falconer J, Stulberg SD, Arnold WJ, Dyer AR. Prerandomization: an alternative to classic randomization. The effects on recruitment in a controlled trial of arthroscopy for osteoarthrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:1451-5.
  40. Bowen J, Hirsch S. Recruitment rates and factors affecting recruitment for a clinical trial of a putative anti-psychotic agent in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. Hum Psychopharmacol 1992;7:337-41.
  41. Coombs DW, Dimick A, Bronstein JM, Potts LH, Bowens B. Conceptual and methodologic problems in the evaluation of a new burns treatment modality. J Burn Care Rehabil 1993;14:568-71.
  42. Hunter CP, Frelick RW, Feldman AR, Bavier AR, Dunlap WH, Ford L, et al. Selection factors in clinical trials: results from the Community Clinical Oncology Program physician's patient log. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:559-65.
  43. Moody LE, Gregory SJ, Bocanegra T, Vasey F. Search and research: factors influencing post-menopausal African-American women's participation in a clinical trial. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 1995;7:483-8.
  44. Yeomans-Kinney A, Vernon SW, Frankowski RF, Weber DM, Bitsura JM, Vogel VG. Factors related to enrollment in the breast cancer prevention trial at a comprehensive cancer center during the first year of recruitment. Cancer 1995;76:46-56.
  45. DeLuca SA, Korcuska LA, Oberstar BH, Rosenthal ML, Welsh PA, Topol, EJ. Are we promoting true informed consent in cardiovascular clinical trials? J Cardiovasc Nurs 1995;9(3):54-61.
  46. Stone JM, Page FJ, Laidlaw CR, Cooper I. Selection of patients for randomised trials: a study based on the MACOP-B vs. CHOP in NHL study. Aust N Z J Med 1994;24:536-40.
  47. Miller C, Searight HR, Grable D, Schwartz R, Sowell C, Barbarash RA. Comprehension and recall of the informational content of the informed consent document: an evaluation of 168 patients in a controlled clinical trial. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1994;8:237-48.
  48. Nystrom KM, Forman WB, Holdsworth MT. Clinical research trials: evaluation of a recruitment strategy for healthy elders. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1992;6:293-301.
  49. Easterbrook PJ, Matthews DR. Fate of research studies. J R Soc Med 1992;85:71-6.
  50. Holden G, Rosenberg G, Barker K, Tuhrim S, Brenner B. The recruitment of research participants: a review. Soc Work Health Care 1993;19(2):1-44.
  51. Coombs DW, Dimick A, Bronstein JM, Potts LH, Bowens B. Conceptual and methodologic problems in the evaluation of a new burn treatment modality. J Burn Care Rehabil 1993;14:568-71.
  52. Diekmann JM, Smith JM. Strategies for assessment and recruitment of subjects for nursing research. West J Nurs Res 1989;11:418-30.
  53. Hunninghake DB, Darby CA, Probstfield JL. Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography [review]. Control Clin Trials 1987;8(4 suppl):6-30S.
  54. Strandness DE Jr. Randomized clinical trials: enough bang for the buck [review]? J Vasc Surg 1991;13:544-8.
  55. Carew BD, Ahn SA, Boichot HD, Dierenfeldt BJ, Dolan NA, Edens TR, et al. Recruitment strategies in the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD): strategies for screening and enrolment in two concurrent but separate trials. Control Clin Trials 1992;13:325-38.
  56. Tognoni G, Alli C, Avanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Corso R, et al. Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ 1991;303: 969-71.
  57. Bjornson-Benson WM, Stibolt TB, Manske KA, Zavela KJ, Youtsey DJ, Buist AS. Monitoring recruit- ment effectiveness and cost in a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 1993;14:52-67S.
  58. Silagy CA, Campion K, McNeil JJ, Worsam B, Donnan GA, Tonkin AM. Comparison of recruit- ment strategies for a large-scale clinical trial in the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1105-14.
  59. Hunter CP, Frelick RW, Feldman AR, Bavier AR, Dunlap WH, Ford L, et al. Selection factors in clinical trials: results from the Community Clinical Oncology Program Physician's Patient Log. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:559-65.
  60. Collins R, Peto R, Gray R, Parish S. Large-scale randomized evidence: trials and overviews. In: Wetherall DJ, Ledingham JGG, Warrell DA, editors. Oxford textbook of medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. vol. 1:21-32.
  61. Peto R. Clinical trial reporting [letter]. Lancet 1996;348:894-5.
  62. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodo- logical quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
  63. Schulz KF. Unbiased research and the human spirit: the challenges of randomized controlled trials [editorial]. Can Med Assoc J 1995;153:783-6.
  64. Hornbuckle J, Thornton JG, Kelly CR, Welch CR, Oldham J. Netpoints: patient randomisation on the web. BMJ 1997;314:1604.
  65. Task Force of the Working Group on Arrhythmias of the European Society of Cardiology. The early termination of clinical trials: causes, consequences, and control. With special reference to trials in the field of arrhythmias and sudden death. Eur Heart J 1994;15:721-38.
  66. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations [review]. Control Clin Trials 1993;14:183-97.
  67. Urquhart J. Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics. A review of recent research. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994;27:202-15.
  68. Besch CL. Compliance in clinical trials [editorial]. AIDS 1995;9:1-10.
  69. Klein MC, Kaczorowski J, Robbins JM, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, Joshi AK. Physicians' beliefs and behaviour during a randomized controlled trial of episiotomy: consequences for women in their care. Can Med Assoc J 1995;153:769-79.
  70. Melnikow J, Kiefe C. Patient compliance and medical research: issues in methodology. J Gen Intern Med 1994;9:96-105.
  71. Morse EV, Simon PM, Besch CL, Walker J. Issues of recruitment, retention, and compliance in community-based clinical trials with traditionally under-served populations. Appl Nurs Res 1995;8:8-14.
  72. Schechtman KB, Gordon MO. The effect of poor compliance and treatment side effects on sample size requirements in randomized clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 1994;4:223-32.
  73. Wingerson D, Sullivan M, Dager S, Flick S, Dunner D, Roy-Byrne P. Personality traits and early discontinuation from clinical trials in anxious patients. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1993;13:194-7.
  74. Pledger GW. Compliance in clinical trials: impact on design, analysis and interpretation [review]. Epilepsy Res Suppl 1988;1:125-33.
  75. Stephenson BJ, Rowe BH, Haynes RB, Macharia WM, Leon G. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed? JAMA 1993;269:2779-81.
  76. Atwood JR, Haase J, Rees-McGee S, Blackwell G, Giordano L, Earnest D, et al. Reasons related to adherence in community-based field studies. Patient Educ Counsel 1992;19:251-9.
  77. Dunbar J, Cleary PA, Siebert C, Baker L, Brink S, Nathan DM. Implementation of a multicomponent process to obtain informed consent in the diabetes control and complications trial. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:83-96.
  78. Morrison W. Trials and tribulations: patients' perspectives of the BETASERON study. Axon 1994;16(2):51-4.
  79. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Kanani R. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the effects on patient adherence and outcomes of inter- ventions to assist patients to follow prescriptions for medications. (Cochrane review). In: Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 1996. Oxford: Update Software.
  80. Kleijnen J, ter Riet G, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and asthma: a review of controlled trials [review]. Thorax 1991;46:799-802.
  81. Lionetto R, Pugliese V, Bruzzi P, Rosso R. No standard treatment is available for advanced pancreatic cancer [review: see comments]. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:882-7.
  82. Orr PR, Blackhurst DW, Hawkins BS. Patient and clinic factors predictive of missed visits and inactive status in a multicenter clinical trial. The Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Control Clin Trials 1992;13:40-9.
  83. Fisher S, Greenberg RP. How sound is the double- blind design for evaluating psychotropic drugs [review]? J Nerv Ment Dis 1993;181:345-50.
  84. Talley NJ. A critique of therapeutic trials in Helicobacter pylori-positive functional dyspepsia [review]. Gastroenterology 1994;106:1174-83.
  85. Kirsch I, Rosadino MJ. Do double-blind studies with informed consent yield externally valid results? An empirical test. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1993;110:437-42.
  86. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller JL, Singer J. Should study subjects see their previous responses? Data from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:913-20.
  87. Gibson D, Harvey AJ, Everett V, Parmar MK. Is double data entry necessary? The CHART trials. [Continuous, Hyperfractionated, Accelerated RadioTherapy]. Control Clin Trials 1994;15:482-8.
  88. McCandlish R, Renfrew M. Trial and tribulation ... treatments for inverted nipples ... difficulties involved in research. Nurs Times 1991;87(38):40-1.
  89. Bigby M, Gadenne AS. Understanding and evaluating clinical trials. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;34:555-94.
  90. Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research [review]. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:837-41.
  91. Peduzzi P, Detre K, Wittes J, Holford T. Intent- to-treat analysis and the problem of crossovers. An example from the Veterans Administration Coronary Bypass Surgery Study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991;101:481-7.
  92. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz G, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med 1991;10:1595-605.
  93. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis [review]. Circulation 1981;64:669-73.
  94. Kannel WB. Coronary artery surgery study revisited. Limitation of the intent-to-treat principle [editorial; comment]. Circulation 1990;82:1859-62.
  95. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials [review]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995;57:6-15.
  96. Schmoor C, Olschewski M, Schumacher M. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. Stat Med 1996;15:263-71.
  97. Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis [published erratum appears in Control Clin Trials 1989;50:356]. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10:31-56.
  98. Blair PS, Silman AJ. Can clinical trials in rheumatology be improved [review]? Curr Opin Rheumatol 1991;3:272-9.
  99. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Time for changes in the design, analysis, and reporting of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials [review]. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:140-9.
  100. Buist SA, Greenlick MR. Response to 'Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 -the perspective of NIH clinical trialists'. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:296-8.
  101. Fraser WD. Response to 'Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 -the perspective of NIH clinical trialists'. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:299.
  102. Klein DF. Improvement of Phase III psychotropic drug trials by intensive Phase II work [review]. Neuropsychopharmacology 1991;4:251-71.
  103. Overall JE. Statistical efficiencies that the FDA should encourage [review]. Psychopharmacol Bull 1991;27:211-16.
  104. Balas EA, Austin SM, Ewigman BG, Brown GD, Mitchell JA. Methods of randomized controlled clinical trials in health services research. Med Care 1995;33:687-99.
  105. Sonis J, Joines J. The quality of clinical trials published in the Journal of Family Practice, 1974-1991. J Fam Pract 1994;39:225-35.
  106. Marsoni S, Torri W, Taiana A, Gambino A, Grilli R, Liati P, et al. Critical review of the quality and development of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their influence on the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 1990;1:343-50.
  107. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:942-51.
  108. Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990;335: 149-53.
  109. Balas EA, Austin SM, Ewigman BG, Brown GD, Mitchell JA. Methods of randomized controlled clinical trials in health services research. Med Care 1995;33:687-99.
  110. Claessen JQ, Appelman CL, Touw-Otten FW, de Melker RA, Hordijk GJ. A review of clinical trials regarding treatment of acute otitis media [review]. Clin Otolaryngol 1992;17:251-7.
  111. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Niacin and vitamin B6 in mental functioning: a review of controlled trials in humans [review]. Biol Psychiatry 1991;29:931-41.
  112. Kleijnen J, ter Riet G, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and asthma: a review of controlled trials [review]. Thorax 1991;46:799-802.
  113. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Ginkgo biloba for cerebral insufficiency [review]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992;34:352-8.
  114. Klein KB. Controlled treatment trials in the irritable bowel syndrome: a critique [review]. Gastroenterology 1988;95:232-41.
  115. Koes BW, Bouter LM, van der Heijden GJ. Methodological quality of randomized clinical trials on treatment efficacy in low back pain. Spine 1995;20:228-35.
  116. Lionetto R, Pugliese V, Bruzzi P, Rosso R. No standard treatment is available for advanced pancreatic cancer [review]. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:882-7.
  117. Marsoni S, Torri W, Taiana A, Gambino A, Grilli R, Liati P, et al. Critical review of the quality and development of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their influence on the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 1990;1:343-50.
  118. O'Donovan PA, Vandekerckhove P, Lilford RJ, Hughes E. Treatment of male infertility: is it effective? Review and meta-analyses of published randomized controlled trials. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1209-22.
  119. Silagy CA, Jewell D. Review of 39 years of randomized controlled trials in the British Journal of General Practice [review]. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:359-63.
  120. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 1994;115:707-12.
  121. Sonis J, Joines J. The quality of clinical trials published in the Journal of Family Practice, 1974-1991. J Fam Pract 1994;39:225-35.
  122. Rochon PA, Fortin PR, Dear KBG, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC. Reporting of age data in clinical trials of arthritis: deficiencies and solutions. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:243-8.
  123. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
  124. Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in five general medical journals: islands in search of continents. JAMA 1998;280:280-2.
  125. Julian D. Trials and tribulations. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:598-603.
  126. Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:741-3.
  127. Peto R. Clinical trial reporting [letter]. Lancet 1996;348:894-5.
  128. Marciniak TA. Recommendations for reporting clinical trials [letter]. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:411.
  129. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990; 263:1392-5.
  130. Parmley WW. Publication bias [editorial]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:1424-5.
  131. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72.
  132. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [database]. In: Cochrane Library Issue 4, 1997. Oxford: Update Software.
  133. Keirse MJ, Van Hoven M. Reanalysis of a multireported trial on home uterine activity monitoring. Birth 1993;20(3):117-22.
  134. Schwartz D, Lellouch D. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chronic Dis 1967;20:637-45.
  135. Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlof B. Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Blood Press 1992;1:113-19.
  136. Fetter MS, Feetham SL, d'Apolito K, Chaze BA, Fink A, Frink BB, et al. Randomized clinical trials: issues for researchers. Nurs Res 1989;38:117-20.
  137. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, LeSage S, Gulati SC, Armitage JO, Gorin NC. Economic analyses of clinical trials in cancer: are they helpful to policy makers [review]? Stem Cells 1994;12:424-9.
  138. Tannock IF. New perspectives in combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatment [review]. Lung Cancer 1994;10(suppl 1):S29-51.
  139. Drummond M. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: problems and potential [review]. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1403-7.
  140. Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL. Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 1996;119:466-72.
  141. Schwartz JS. Prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial: economic analysis in study design and conditions of uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; National Cancer Institute, Monograph no.19; 1995. p.73-5.
  142. Torgerson DJ, Ryan M, Ratcliffe J. Economics in sample size determination for clinical trials. QJM 1995;88:517-21.
  143. Anderson LA, Fogler J, Dedrick RF. Recruiting from the community: lessons learned from the diabetes care for older adults project. Gerontologist 1995;35:395-401.
  144. Cohen MC, McKenna C, Lewis SM, Muller JE. Requirements for controlled clinical trials of preoperative cardiovascular risk reduction. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:89-95.
  145. Penman DT, Holland JC, Bahna GF, Morrow G, Schmale AH, Derogatis LR, et al. Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patient and physician perspectives. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:849-55.
  146. Baines CJ. Impediments to recruitment in the Canadian breast screening study: response and resolution. Control Clin Trials 1984;5:129-40.
  147. Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodo- logical issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991;7:561-73.
  148. Easterbrook PJ, Matthews DR. Fate of research studies. J R Soc Med 1992;85:71-6.
  149. Fleming ID. Barriers to clinical trials: Part I. Reimbursement problems [review]. Cancer 1994;74(9 suppl):2662-5.
  150. Foley JF, Moertel CG. Improving accrual into cancer clinical trials. J Cancer Educ 1991;6:165-73.
  151. Ho RC. The future direction of clinical trials [review]. Cancer 1994;74(9 suppl):2739-44.
  152. King AC, Harris RB, Haskell WL. Effect of recruitment strategy on types of subjects entered into a primary prevention clinical trial. Ann Epidemiol 1994;4:312-20.
  153. Mansour EG. Barriers to clinical trials: Part III. Knowledge and attitudes of health care providers. Cancer 1994;74:2672-5.
  154. Smyth JF, Mossman J, Hall R, Hepburn S, Pinkerton R, Richards M, et al. Conducting clinical research in the new NHS: the model of cancer (UK Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research). BMJ 1994;309:457-61.
  155. Swanson GM, Ward AJ. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials: toward a participant-friendly system. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1747-59.
  156. Tannock IF. The recruitment of patients into clinical trials [editorial; comment]. Br J Cancer 1995;71:1134-5.
  157. Tilley BC, Peterson EL, Kleerekoper M, Phillips E, Nelson DA, Shorck, MA. Designing clinical trials of treatment for osteoporosis: recruitment and follow- up [editorial]. Calcif Tissue Int 1990;47:327-31.
  158. Welsh KA, Ballard E, Nash F, Raiford K, Harrell L. Issues affecting minority participation in research studies of Alzheimer disease [review]. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1994;8(suppl 4):38-48.
  159. statistic. 164 Health Technology Assessment 1999; Vol. 3: No. 20 127 Set Search Results 084 ((indemni$ or insur$ or liab$) adj3 (trial$ or stud$ or research$ or random$)).ti. 17 085 (blinding$ adj3 (trial$ or stud$ or research$ or random$.ti. 365 086 ((terminat$ or stopti.
  160. Gillespie WJ, Henry DA, O'Connell DL, Lau EM, Robertson J. Vitamin D analogues in the prevention of fractures. In: Cochrane Library. Issue 3, 1996. (Musculoskeletal Injuries module). Oxford: Update Software.
  161. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605-13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Prescott, Counsell, Gillespie, Grant, Russell, Kiauka, Colthart, Ross, Shepherd, & Russell
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Publisher
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Published
1999
Volume
3
Issue
20
Pages
1-143
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
DOI
10.3310/hta3200
OpenAlex
W2119767902
Cited by
390
References
291
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (00/15/01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, trial quality, trial conduct, research priorities, systematic reviews
MeSH terms
Costs and Cost Analysis, Humans, Quality Control, Research Design, 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