SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006Pooled it
- Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Pooled it
- N of 1, two contemporary arm, randomised controlled clinical trial for bilateral epicondylitis: a new study design.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Trial
- Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2021Review
- Impact of prior malignancies on outcome of colorectal cancer; revisiting clinical trial eligibility criteria.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- The relationship between eligibility criteria and adverse events in randomized controlled trials of hematologic malignancies.Leukemia · 2017Article
- Improved in-hospital outcomes and care for patients in stroke research: An observational study.Neurology · 2016Observational
- Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- Designing clinical trials in trauma surgery: overcoming research barriers.Bone & joint research · 2014Article
- Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trials using the media: the 'Get Randomised' campaign.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
- Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions.Reviews in urology · 2009Article
- Participants in research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up to date physicians and treatments.
objectivesTo assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. SEARCH STRATEGY: In May 2001, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded over 10,000 references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles and wrote to over 250 investigators to try to obtain further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN
resultsWe included five randomised studies (yielding 6 comparisons) and 50 non-randomised cohort studies (85 comparisons), with 31,140 patients treated in RCTs and 20,380 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.002, I(2) = 36.2%) among the 73 dichotomous outcome comparisons; none of the potential explanatory factors we investigated helped to explain this heterogeneity. No statistically significant differences were found for 63 of the 73 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and two comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There were no statistically significant differences in heterogeneity (P = 0.53, I(2) = 0%) or in outcomes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12) of patients treated within and outside RCTs in the 18 comparisons which had used continuous outcomes. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis review indicates that participation in RCTs is not associated with greater risks than receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17443630What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.