ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2017
The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Cost-Effectiveness of Case and Care Management in Older Populations in Germany: a Systematic Literature Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023Pooled it
- Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment-A State-of-the-Art Review on Methodological Characteristics and Stimulation Parameters.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Can positive expectations help to improve the learning of risk literacy? A cluster-randomized study in undergraduate medical students.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Combination Pharmacology for ALS: A Mechanistic Rationale.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Safety Profile of Medications for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Epidemiological Analysis of Completed RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Conducting a randomized controlled clinical trial on palliative care in patients with glioblastoma - what are the challenges?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluating Intervention Reporting in Nursing Journal RCTs Using the TIDieR Checklist: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient-Trial Matching With Large Language Models: A Scoping Review of Emerging Applications and Approaches.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Registry or randomization - must it be evidence or could it be coincidence?Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Review
- [Medical ethical challenges of phage therapy-informed consent, study design and therapeutic trial].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- [More pragmatic randomized studies with a focus on registry-based trials].Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung · 2022Article
- Randomized controlled trials-a critical re-appraisal.Neurosurgical review · 2021Review
- Researching the Effectiveness of Tree of Life: an Imbeleko Approach to Counseling Refugee Youth.Journal of child & adolescent trauma · 2021Article
- [Hunger for data and patient well-being-health care research on all fronts].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Article
- Impact of randomized controlled trials on neurosurgical practice in decompressive craniectomy for ischemic stroke.Neurosurgical review · 2019Article
- Article
- Long-term real-life safety profile and effectiveness of fumaric acid esters in psoriasis patients: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2018Observational
- Central Problem is Equipoise.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- No Substitute for a Doctor's Intuition.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research.
methodsThe diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples.
resultsA wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice.
conclusionOnly the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.
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.