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

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

Clinical Trials

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Blinding

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

Blind Procedures

Blind Procedures

Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which child was...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

Pre-referral rectal artesunate in severe malaria: flawed trial.

Trials·2011

Same author

Calculating unreported confidence intervals for paired data.

BMC medical research methodology·2011

Same author

Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern.

Trials·2009

Same author

Simple polynomial multiplication algorithms for exact conditional tests of linearity in a logistic model.

Computer methods and programs in biomedicine·2002

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study.

Karim F Hirji¹

¹Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P O Box 65015, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. kfhirji@aol.com

|January 9, 2009

Summary

Checklists for assessing trial quality can be misleading. A comprehensive review revealed serious flaws in a highly-rated study, highlighting the need for in-depth scrutiny beyond simple checklists.

Area of Science:

Medical research methodology
Evidence-based medicine
Systematic reviews

Background:

Assessing the quality of included trials is crucial for systematic reviews.
Numerous checklist-type instruments exist for trial quality assessment.
This paper examines limitations of checklist approaches using a specific case study.

Purpose of the Study:

To illustrate the limitations of checklist-based trial quality assessment.
To highlight potential flaws missed by standard quality evaluation methods.
To advocate for augmented, in-depth trial reviews.

Main Methods:

Utilized a case study of an antibiotic treatment trial for acute otitis media (Burke et al., 1991).
Performed a comprehensive evaluation of the trial's design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.

Related Experiment Videos

Compared findings with previous quality assessments from nine systematic reviews.

Main Results:

Previous checklist evaluations rated the Burke et al. (1991) trial as high quality.
Extensive meta-analyses relied heavily on data from this trial.
The comprehensive evaluation uncovered significant design, conduct, analysis, and reporting issues missed by checklists.

Conclusions:

Checklist-based assessments can incorrectly rate flawed trials as high quality.
In-depth review, protocol scrutiny, and data examination are essential.
The identified issues necessitate an independent audit before trial inclusion in systematic reviews.