Listen to podcast with the author How do doctors decide whether their drugs, or other treatments, actually work? In practice this can be fiendishly difficult. Nowadays the gold standard is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). But the RCT is a recent invention, and the story of how it came to dominate therapeutic evaluation from the latter half of the twentieth century involves acrimony, confrontation, and manipulation of the powerful rhetoric of ‘control’. Control and the Therapeutic Trial examines the development of the RCT from the eclectic collection of methodologies available to practitioners in the early-twentieth century. In particular, it explores the British Medical Research Council’s (MRC) exploitation of the term ‘controlled’ to help establish its own ‘controlled trials’ as the gold standard for therapeutic evaluation, and, ultimately, the MRC itself as the proper authority to adjudicate on therapeutic efficacy. This rhetorical power still clings, and is exploited today. Control and the Therapeutic Trial will be of interest not only to historians of twentieth-century medicine and practising clinicians who take therapeutic decisions, but to anyone who seeks a broader insight into the forces that shaped, and control, the modern controlled trial.

Clinical trials are used to elucidate the most appropriate preventive, diagnostic, or treatment options for individuals with a given medical condition. Perhaps the most essential feature of a clinical trial is that it aims to use results based on a limited sample of research participants to see if the intervention is safe and effective or if it is comparable to a comparison treatment. Sample size is a crucial component of any clinical trial. A trial with a small number of research participants is more prone to variability and carries a considerable risk of failing to demonstrate the effectiveness of a given intervention when one really is present. This may occur in phase I (safety and pharmacologic profiles), II (pilot efficacy evaluation), and III (extensive assessment of safety and efficacy) trials. Although phase I and II studies may have smaller sample sizes, they usually have adequate statistical power, which is the committee's definition of a "large" trial. Sometimes a trial with eight participants may have adequate statistical power, statistical power being the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the hypothesis is false. Small Clinical Trials assesses the current methodologies and the appropriate situations for the conduct of clinical trials with small sample sizes. This report assesses the published literature on various strategies such as (1) meta-analysis to combine disparate information from several studies including Bayesian techniques as in the confidence profile method and (2) other alternatives such as assessing therapeutic results in a single treated population (e.g., astronauts) by sequentially measuring whether the intervention is falling above or below a preestablished probability outcome range and meeting predesigned specifications as opposed to incremental improvement.

Randomized clinical trials are the primary tool for evaluating new medical interventions. Randomization provides for a fair comparison between treatment and control groups, balancing out, on average, distributions of known and unknown factors among the participants. Unfortunately, these studies often lack a substantial percentage of data. This missing data reduces the benefit provided by the randomization and introduces potential biases in the comparison of the treatment groups. Missing data can arise for a variety of reasons, including the inability or unwillingness of participants to meet appointments for evaluation. And in some studies, some or all of data collection ceases when participants discontinue study treatment. Existing guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials, and the analysis of the resulting data, provide only limited advice on how to handle missing data. Thus, approaches to the analysis of data with an appreciable amount of missing values tend to be ad hoc and variable. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials concludes that a more principled approach to design and analysis in the presence of missing data is both needed and possible. Such an approach needs to focus on two critical elements: (1) careful design and conduct to limit the amount and impact of missing data and (2) analysis that makes full use of information on all randomized participants and is based on careful attention to the assumptions about the nature of the missing data underlying estimates of treatment effects. In addition to the highest priority recommendations, the book offers more detailed recommendations on the conduct of clinical trials and techniques for analysis of trial data.

Bradford Hill has defined a clinical trial as "A carefully and ethically designed experiment with the aim of answering some precisely framed question" [1]. This definition specifies a careful design and requires the provision of adequate controls. Random allocation of treatments to subjects is important to ensure is entitled that the treated and control groups are similar. Therefore this book Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials. We can define a randomised controlled trial by rewriting Bradford Hill's definition as follows, "A carefully and ethi cally designed experiment which includes the provision of adequate and ap propriate controls by a process of randomisation, so that precisely framed questions can be answered. " I am a firm advocate ofRandomised Controlled Clinical Trials but intend to give a balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of these ethical experiments. This book is directed primarily at the medical research worker, although certain chapters may find a wider application. When discussing a randomised controlled trial, it is neither practicable nor desirable to divorce theory from practice, however the first ten chapters con centrate mainly on theory, and the remainder focus on practice. The segment on trial design is followed by sections on writing the protocol, designing the forms, conducting the trial, and analysing the results. This book is meant to serve both as a reference manual and a practical guide to the design and performance of a trial.

Every day we make decisions about our health - some big and some small. What we eat, how we live and even where we live can affect our health. But how can we be sure that the advice we are given about these important matters is right for us? This book will provide you with the right tools for assessing health advice.

Randomized controlled trials are one of the most powerful and revolutionary tools of research. This book is a convenient and accessible description of the underlying principles and practice of randomized controlled trials and their role in clinical decision-making. Structured in a jargon-free question-and-answer format, each chapter provides concise and understandable information on a different aspect of randomized controlled trials, from the basics of trial design and terminology to the interpretation of results and their use in driving evidence-based medicine. The authors end each chapter with their musings, going beyond the evidence or citations, and sometimes even beyond orthodox correctness to share their thoughts and concerns about different aspects of randomized controlled trials, and their role within the health system. Updated to include insights from the last decade, this second edition challenges over-reliance on randomized controlled trials by debating their strengths and limitations and discussing their optimal use in modern healthcare. It also includes a new and increasingly relevant chapter on the ethics of randomized trials. World renowned writers and thinkers Drs Jadad and Enkin bring you this invaluable book for busy health professionals who wish to understand the theory of randomized controlled trials and their influence on clinical, research or policy decisions.

The internal validity of a study reflects the extent to which the design and conduct of the study have prevented bias(es). One of the key steps in a systematic review is assessment of a study's internal validity, or potential for bias. This assessment serves to: (1) identify the strengths and limitations of the included studies; (2) investigate, and potentially explain heterogeneity in findings across different studies included in a systematic review; and (3) grade the strength of evidence for a given question. The risk of bias assessment directly informs one of four key domains considered when assessing the strength of evidence. With the increase in the number of published systematic reviews and development of systematic review methodology over the past 15 years, close attention has been paid to the methods for assessing internal validity. Until recently this has been referred to as “quality assessment” or “assessment of methodological quality.” In this context “quality” refers to “the confidence that the trial design, conduct, and analysis has minimized or avoided biases in its treatment comparisons.” To facilitate the assessment of methodological quality, a plethora of tools has emerged. Some of these tools were developed for specific study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies), while others were intended to be applied to a range of designs. The tools often incorporate characteristics that may be associated with bias; however, many tools also contain elements related to reporting (e.g., was the study population described) and design (e.g., was a sample size calculation performed) that are not related to bias. The Cochrane Collaboration recently developed a tool to assess the potential risk of bias in RCTs. The Risk of Bias (ROB) tool was developed to address some of the shortcomings of existing quality assessment instruments, including over-reliance on reporting rather than methods. Several systematic reviews have catalogued and critiqued the numerous tools available to assess methodological quality, or risk of bias of primary studies. In summary, few existing tools have undergone extensive inter-rater reliability or validity testing. Moreover, the focus of much of the tool development or testing that has been done has been on criterion or face validity. Therefore it is unknown whether, or to what extent, the summary assessments based on these tools differentiate between studies with biased and unbiased results (i.e., studies that may over- or underestimate treatment effects). There is a clear need for inter-rater reliability testing of different tools in order to enhance consistency in their application and interpretation across different systematic reviews. Further, validity testing is essential to ensure that the tools being used can identify studies with biased results. Finally, there is a need to determine inter-rater reliability and validity in order to support the uptake and use of individual tools that are recommended by the systematic review community, and specifically the ROB tool within the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program. In this project we focused on two tools that are commonly used in systematic reviews. The Cochrane ROB tool was designed for RCTs and is the instrument recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration for use in systematic reviews of RCTs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is commonly used for nonrandomized studies, specifically cohort and case-control studies.

Data sharing can accelerate new discoveries by avoiding duplicative trials, stimulating new ideas for research, and enabling the maximal scientific knowledge and benefits to be gained from the efforts of clinical trial participants and investigators. At the same time, sharing clinical trial data presents risks, burdens, and challenges. These include the need to protect the privacy and honor the consent of clinical trial participants; safeguard the legitimate economic interests of sponsors; and guard against invalid secondary analyses, which could undermine trust in clinical trials or otherwise harm public health. Sharing Clinical Trial Data presents activities and strategies for the responsible sharing of clinical trial data. With the goal of increasing scientific knowledge to lead to better therapies for patients, this book identifies guiding principles and makes recommendations to maximize the benefits and minimize risks. This report offers guidance on the types of clinical trial data available at different points in the process, the points in the process at which each type of data should be shared, methods for sharing data, what groups should have access to data, and future knowledge and infrastructure needs. Responsible sharing of clinical trial data will allow other investigators to replicate published findings and carry out additional analyses, strengthen the evidence base for regulatory and clinical decisions, and increase the scientific knowledge gained from investments by the funders of clinical trials. The recommendations of Sharing Clinical Trial Data will be useful both now and well into the future as improved sharing of data leads to a stronger evidence base for treatment. This book will be of interest to stakeholders across the spectrum of research-from funders, to researchers, to journals, to physicians, and ultimately, to patients.

This book describes the main issues of eighteenth-century pharmacology and therapeutics and provides detailed case studies of three key areas: lithontriptics (remedies against urinary stones), opium, and Peruvian bark (quinine).