Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results

@article{Krauss2018WhyAR,
  title={Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results},
  author={Alexander Krauss},
  journal={Annals of Medicine},
  year={2018},
  volume={50},
  pages={312 - 322}
}
  • A. Krauss
  • Published 2018
  • Medicine
  • Annals of Medicine
Abstract Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are commonly viewed as the best research method to inform public health and social policy. Usually they are thought of as providing the most rigorous evidence of a treatment’s effectiveness without strong assumptions, biases and limitations. Objective: This is the first study to examine that hypothesis by assessing the 10 most cited RCT studies worldwide. Data sources: These 10 RCT studies with the highest number of citations in any… Expand

Topics from this paper

Randomised controlled trials may have many unrecognised potential biases
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may be the gold standard, but all that glisters is not gold, warns a research fellow at the London School of Economics.1 Alexander Krauss has analysed the 10 mostExpand
Quantitative and Qualitative Strategies to Strengthen Internal Validity in Randomized Trials.
  • S. Sidani, H. O'Rourke
  • Medicine, Psychology
  • The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres
  • 2020
Although the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the most reliable design to infer causality, evidence suggests that it is vulnerable to biases that weaken internal validity. In this paper, weExpand
Randomized Control Trials and Qualitative Evaluations of a Multifaceted Programme for Women in Extreme Poverty: Empirical Findings and Methodological Reflections
  • N. Kabeer
  • Psychology
  • Journal of Human Development and Capabilities
  • 2019
Abstract This paper sets out to synthesize key lessons from studies using alternative methodologies to impact assessment. Drawing on Sen’s capability approach as a conceptual framework, it analysesExpand
Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs
TLDR
The distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate changes was elucidated to serve as a guide for less experienced clinical trialists and other stakeholders to provide assurance to all stakeholders of their validity. Expand
Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice
TLDR
Data recorded in primary care are a rich resource and linkage could provide near real-time information to supplement trials and an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for long-term follow-up, according to a set of recommendations on linkage and supplementation of trials. Expand
How to evaluate potential non-specific effects of vaccines: the quest for randomized trials or time for triangulation?
TLDR
It is proposed that triangulation of RCTs and observational studies, merging multiple lines of evidence with different underlying bias structures, can build a strong argument for causality. Expand
Funding of Clinical Trials and Reported Drug Efficacy∗
Clinical trials are a key determinant of drug approvals and also influence prescription decisions. In recent years, an increasing share of clinical trials have been funded by pharmaceutical firms, asExpand
Patient Expectations of Assigned Treatments Impact Strength of Randomised Control Trials
TLDR
Simple Monto Carlo simulations demonstrate that patient variables affect sample variance, and sample kurtosis, which reduce the power of RCTs, and may lead to false negatives, even when the randomisation process works. Expand
Assay Randomised Controlled Trials during epidemic
An RCT is designed to attempt to reduce bias, particularly in trials evaluating new drugs. The principle is to random assign volunteers into two or more treatment options and then compare themExpand
The Impact of Performing a Network Meta-Analysis with Imperfect Evidence
TLDR
This thesis investigates methods for dealing with imperfect evidence by considering two techniques for adjusting for confounding variables due to differing patient populations in a connected network and proposing a method for including single-arm evidence in a disconnected network through aggregate level matching. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 41 REFERENCES
A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group.
A RANDOMIZED controlled trial (RCT) is the most reliable method of assessing the efficacy of health care interventions.1,2Reports of RCTs should provide readers with adequate information about whatExpand
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
TLDR
There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Expand
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
TLDR
Study of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. Expand
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
TLDR
The view is widely held that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the "gold standard" for evaluation and that observational methods have little or no value, but this ignores the limitations of randomised trials. Expand
CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
TLDR
This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. Expand
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals
TLDR
The epidemiology and reporting of methodological details for all 519 PubMed-indexed randomised trials published in December, 2000 were assessed, and power calculation, primary outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and handling of attrition were each adequately described. Expand
Why There's No Cause to Randomize
  • J. Worrall
  • Sociology
  • The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
  • 2007
The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is widely regarded as supplying the ‘gold standard’ in medicine—we may sometimes have to settle for other forms of evidence, but this is alwaysExpand
Make journals report clinical trials properly
TLDR
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, UK, is targeting the problem of selective outcome reporting in clinical trials, showing that outcome-switching is highly prevalent, and that such switches often lead to more favourable statistically significant results being reported instead. Expand
Are RCTs the Gold Standard?
The claims of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard rest on the fact that the ideal RCT is a deductive method: if the assumptions of the test are met, a positive result impliesExpand
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
TLDR
Investigating whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support found systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...