Extent and reporting of patient nonenrollment in influential randomized clinical trials, 2002 to 2010.

@article{Humphreys2013ExtentAR,
  title={Extent and reporting of patient nonenrollment in influential randomized clinical trials, 2002 to 2010.},
  author={Keith Humphreys and Natalya C. Maisel and Janet C. Blodgett and Ingrid L Fuh and John W. Finney},
  journal={JAMA internal medicine},
  year={2013},
  volume={173 11},
  pages={
          1029-31
        }
}
Because they assign patients to treatment conditions, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) offer unparalleled internal validity for drawing inferences about the efficacy of a medical treatment. Whether such inferences can be generalized is not always clear because many RCTs enroll a low and unrepresentative proportion of all patients.1–6 The challenges of judging the clinical utility of clinical trial results are increased by poor reporting: Gross and colleagues’ study of trials published in… CONTINUE READING

Topics from this paper.

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
SHOWING 1-10 OF 10 CITATIONS

Redundant, secretive, and isolated: when are clinical trials scientifically valid?

  • Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
  • 2014
VIEW 2 EXCERPTS
CITES BACKGROUND
HIGHLY INFLUENCED

Representativeness of Honeypot Trial Participants to Australasian PD Patients.

Lei Zhang, Sunil V. Badve, +14 authors David W. Johnson
  • Peritoneal dialysis international : journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
  • 2017
VIEW 1 EXCERPT
CITES BACKGROUND