ReviewTrials2015
Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy.
Review in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World and Clinical Trials Data.Targeted oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Autogenous teeth used for bone grafting: A systematic review.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Framework for converting mechanistic network models to probabilistic models.Journal of complex networks · 2023Article
- Randomized controlled trials-a critical re-appraisal.Neurosurgical review · 2021Review
- Shaken not stirred: Big data meets randomized controlled trial.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2021Article
- Article
- Getting standardization right.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2020Review
- Observational studies of treatment effectiveness: worthwhile or worthless?Clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Information-Based Medicine in Glioma Patients: A Clinical Perspective.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2018Review
- Expanding the knowledge translation metaphor.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Investigator-initiated clinical trials conducted by the Portuguese Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (PtCRIN).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2016Article
- Whose evidence do we follow?Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised trials can provide excellent evidence of treatment benefit in medicine. Over the last 50 years, they have been cemented in the regulatory requirements for the approval of new treatments. Randomised trials make up a large and seemingly high-quality proportion of the medical evidence-base. However, it has also been acknowledged that a distorted evidence-base places a severe limitation on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We describe four important ways in which the evidence from randomised trials is limited or partial: the problem of applying results, the problem of bias in the conduct of randomised trials, the problem of conducting the wrong trials and the problem of conducting the right trials the wrong way. These problems are not intrinsic to the method of randomised trials or the EBM philosophy of evidence; nevertheless, they are genuine problems that undermine the evidence that randomised trials provide for decision-making and therefore undermine EBM in practice. Finally, we discuss the social dimensions of these problems and how they highlight the indispensable role of judgement when generating and using evidence for medicine. This is the paradox of randomised trial evidence: the trials open up expert judgment to scrutiny, but this scrutiny in turn requires further expertise.
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.