Cited by 119Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyEthics in Clinical Research

Fundamentals of clinical trial design

Open access
Evans, Scott R.·2010·Journal of Experimental Stroke and Translational Medicine

Abstract

Most errors in clinical trials are a result of poor planning. Fancy statistical methods cannot rescue design flaws. Thus careful planning with clear foresight is crucial. Issues in trial conduct and analyses should be anticipated during trial design and thoughtfully addressed. Fundamental clinical trial design issues are discussed.

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 · 10.6030/1939-067x-3.1.19

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Only trial designs that allow for the isolation of the effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy will be included.

    “Only trial designs that allow for the isolation of the effects of CBT will be included given it is important for active comparators to discriminate intervention effects.59”
  • This problem is particularly acute in neurology, where outcomes may be highly variable, susceptible to the state of the patient, lack a gold standard definition or diagnosis, are high dimensional, or are composite in nature.

    “This problem is particularly acute in neurology, where outcomes may be highly variable (e.g., in cognition), susceptible to the state of the patient (e.g., fatigue, pain, anxiety, depression), the lack of a gold standard definition or diagnosis (e.g., neuropathy, dementia), are high dimensional (e.g., imaging or genomic markers), or are composite in nature (e.g., clinical instruments for assessing”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [270]

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

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, S. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Evans, Scott R.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Stroke and Translational Medicine
Published
2010-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
19-27
ISSN
1939-067X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088245419
Cited by
119
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Stroke and Translational Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI068634, UM1AI068634)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS032228, U01NS032228)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
clinical trial design, trial planning, design errors, trial conduct, statistical analysis planning, stroke 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