Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39833917›Full record

ReviewTrials2025

Large simple randomized controlled trials-from drugs to medical devices: lessons from recent experience.

Sergio Buccheri, Stefan James, Marion Mafham, Martin Landray, Tom Melvin, Jonas Oldgren, Richard Bulbulia, Louise Bowman, Lotje Anna Hoogervorst, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sergio BuccheriDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. sergio.buccheri@medsci.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7767-3073
Stefan JamesDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Marion MafhamClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Martin LandrayClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tom MelvinSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jonas OldgrenDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Richard BulbuliaClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Louise BowmanClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lotje Anna HoogervorstDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Perla J Marang-van de MheenSafety & Security Science and Centre for Safety in Healthcare, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Peter JuniClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter McCullochNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alan G FraserDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

European Union 965246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of modern evidence-based medicine. They are considered essential to establish definitive evidence of efficacy and safety for new drugs, and whenever possible they should also be the preferred method for investigating new high-risk medical devices. Well-designed studies robustly inform clinical practice guidelines and decision-making, but administrative obstacles have made it increasingly difficult to conduct informative RCTs. The obstacles are compounded for RCTs of high-risk medical devices by extra costs related to the interventional procedure that is needed to implant the device, challenges with willingness to randomize patients throughout a trial, and difficulties in ensuring proper blinding even with sham procedures. One strategy that may help is to promote the wider use of simpler and more streamlined RCTs using data that are collected routinely during healthcare delivery. Recent large simple RCTs have successfully compared the performance of drugs and of high-risk medical devices, against alternative treatments; they enrolled many patients in a short time, limited costs, and improved efficiency, while also achieving major impact. From a task conducted within the CORE-MD project, we report from our combined experience of designing and conducting large pharmaceutical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, and of planning and coordinating large registry-based RCTs of cardiovascular devices. We summarize the essential principles and utility of large simple RCTs, likely applicable to all interventions but especially in order to promote their wider adoption to evaluate new medical devices.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignCOVID-19Evidence-Based MedicineHumansSARS-CoV-2Large simple trialsMedical devicesRandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID39833917
PMCPMC11749104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.