SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 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
64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020 · on this mapPooled it
- Metformin for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019 · on this mapPooled it
- Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019 · on this mapPooled it
- Diet, physical activity or both for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017 · on this mapPooled it
- Insulin secretagogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016 · on this mapPooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Pooled it
- Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Enhancing Trial Delivery in Parkinson's Disease: Qualitative Insights from PD STAT.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2022Trial
- Outcomes among pediatric patients with cancer who are treated on trial versus off trial: A matched cohort study.Cancer · 2020Trial
- Outcome of Patients Treated Within and Outside a Randomized Clinical Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: Extrapolation of a Randomized Clinical Trial (CROSS).Annals of surgical oncology · 2018Trial
- Measuring the carbon footprint of clinical research activities: a scoping review of measurement tools and methods.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The Future is Local: the Role of Decentralised Clinical Trials in Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Co-developing a survey on public understanding of sustainable clinical research: A study protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Quantifying the carbon footprint of clinical research activities - measurement tools and methods: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 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. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.
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. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs. SEARCH STRATEGY: In March 2007, 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 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized 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 review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. MAIN
resultsWe identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 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. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to 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
What 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.