Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluation of interventions.

Robert H Fletcher¹

¹Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, 133 Brookline Avenue, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Robert_Fletcher@hms.harvard.edu

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

|January 28, 2003

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.

JAMA network open·2024

Same author

The effect of using fecal testing after a negative sigmoidoscopy on the risk of death from colorectal cancer.

Journal of medical screening·2020

Same author

Aspirin before fecal immunochemical testing did not increase sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms.

Annals of internal medicine·2019

Same author

Guideline: Experts recommend against prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen test.

Annals of internal medicine·2019

Same author

Modifiable Failures in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Process and Their Association With Risk of Death.

Gastroenterology·2018

Same author

Colonoscopy outreach increased CRC screening more than FIT outreach; both were better than usual care.

Annals of internal medicine·2017

Same journal

Harms Reporting Was Frequently Incomplete or Discordant in Biomedical Randomized Trials Published in 2023: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Same journal

Using an Open Science Checklist in Grant Proposal Reviews to Predict Reproducibility of Funded Publications.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Same journal

A comparison of five statistical methods used to analyse longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life scores in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Same journal

Sample Size Determination for Decision-centered Pragmatic Trials.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Same journal

Many multicenter randomized controlled trials do not account for center effect: a methodological review.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Same journal

Patient Acceptability of the Modified Zelen Approach to Randomized Trials - A Survey of the CAPS THA Cohort.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

See all related articles

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are crucial for clinical interventions, but disagreements between trials can occur. Resolving these discrepancies involves critical appraisal and evidence synthesis, not necessarily more trials.

Area of Science:

Clinical research methodology
Evidence-based medicine

Background:

The advent of the first modern randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 1948 marked a significant advancement in clinical research.
RCTs are considered the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions due to their rigorous design.

Observation:

Despite their established credibility, discrepancies can arise between the results of well-conducted RCTs.
The relative impact of specific trial elements on outcomes remains unclear.
Clinical trial applicability may be limited if outcomes are not patient-centered or trial conditions diverge from real-world practice.

Findings:

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can identify patterns in results that individual trials may miss, thus complementing large-scale trial data.
Observational studies can serve as valuable alternatives or complements to RCTs in certain contexts.

Related Experiment Videos

Disagreements between trials can be resolved through critical appraisal of individual studies, comprehensive evidence evaluation, and Bayesian statistical methods.

Implications:

Understanding the factors contributing to trial disagreement is essential for improving the reliability and applicability of clinical research findings.
Synthesizing evidence from multiple sources, including systematic reviews and observational data, enhances the robustness of clinical decision-making.
Advanced analytical techniques, such as Bayesian reasoning, offer powerful tools for reconciling conflicting research results and informing patient care.