ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
A commentary on randomized clinical trials: How to produce them with a good level of evidence.
Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluation of the roughness, color match, and color stability of two monochromatic composite resins: a randomized controlled laboratory study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Effects of 8 weeks of rhythmic physical activity on gross motor movements in 4-5-year-olds: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2024Article
- Early Mobilization Dose Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials With Patients Who Were Mechanically Ventilated: A Scoping Review.Physical therapy · 2024Article
- Common practices for sociodemographic data reporting in digital mental health intervention research: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Implementing medication adherence interventions in four Dutch living labs; context matters.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Marginal Adaptation of In Vitro Class II Restorations Made Out of Bulk or Conventional Composite Using Single- or Multi-Layered Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Cyanoacrylate in the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review.International journal of dentistry · 2023Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of Integrated Technology Apps for Supporting Healthy Food Purchasing and Consumption: A Systematic Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Article
- Osteoporosis and musculoskeletal complications related to therapy of breast cancer.Gland surgery · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the gold standard study for the evaluation of health interventions and is considered the second level of evidence for clinical decision making. However, the quality of the evidence produced by these studies is dependent on the methodological rigor employed at every stage of their execution. The purpose of randomization is to create groups that are comparable independent of any known or unknown potential confounding factor. A critical evaluation of the literature reveals that, for many years, RCTs have been developed based on inaccurate methodological criteria, and empirical evidence began to accumulate. Thus, guidelines were developed to assist authors, reviewers, and editors in the task of developing and assessing the methodological consistency of this type of study. The objective of this article is to review key aspects to design a good-quality RCT, supporting the scientific community in the production of reliable evidence and favoring clinical decision making to allow the patient to receive the best health care.
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.