Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32658656›Full record

ReviewChest2020

Randomized Controlled Trials.

Emily C Zabor, Alexander M Kaizer, Brian P Hobbs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 141 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
141citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

141 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. How Pragmatic Are Sarcopenia Intervention Studies? A Systematic Review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emily C ZaborDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences & Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: zabore2@ccf.org.
Alexander M KaizerDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences & Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Brian P HobbsDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO.

Funding

TUMOR METABOLISM PROGRAMP30CA043703 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Amar Desai · 1987 to 2026
$142.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA043703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence to establish causal associations in clinical research. There are many RCT designs and features that can be selected to address a research hypothesis. Designs of RCTs have become increasingly diverse as new methods have been proposed to evaluate increasingly complex scientific hypotheses. This article reviews the principles and general concepts behind many common RCT designs and introduces newer designs that have been proposed, such as adaptive and cluster randomized trials. A focus on the many choices for randomization within an RCT is described, along with their potential tradeoffs. To illustrate their diversity, examples of RCTs from the literature are provided. Statistical considerations, such as power and type I error rates, are discussed with the intention of providing practical guidance about how to specify study hypotheses that address the scientific question while being statistically appropriate. Finally, the freely available Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines and US Food and Drug Administration guidance documents are introduced, along with a set of guidelines one should consider when planning an RCT or reviewing RCTs submitted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designbiostatisticsclinical trialsrandomized controlled trialsstudy design

Identifiers

PMID32658656
PMCPMC8176647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.