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

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...

Methods of Medium Optimization

Methods of Medium Optimization

Optimizing growth media enhances microbial proliferation and maximizes product yield. Statistical experimental design methodologies provide structured and reproducible approaches, offering progressively higher levels of robustness and efficiency.The One-Factor-at-a-Time (OFAT) MethodThe One-Factor-at-a-Time (OFAT) method involves adjusting a single variable while keeping all others constant. However, it cannot detect interactions between variables, often leading to suboptimal outcomes when...

Group Design

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...

Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications

Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications

The concept of therapeutic equivalence (TE) in drugs with multiple indications is complex. A generic drug may be therapeutically equivalent to a brand-name product for one specific indication, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's equivalent for all other indications. Evidence of TE in one patient group and bioequivalence shown in healthy volunteers can support—but not confirm—TE for other indications. However, definitive proof requires individual clinical studies for each indication due to...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox...

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when researchers try to extrapolate results...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

Failure to Rescue After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions·2024

Same author

Private Equity Acquisitions of Outpatient Cardiology Practices in the United States, 2013-2023.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology·2024

Same author

Residential Racial Segregation in Aortic Stenosis Diagnosis and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Among Medicare Patients.

JACC. Advances·2024

Same author

Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Treated With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon vs Uncoated Balloon-Reply.

JAMA·2024

Same author

Use of Discharge Disposition to Determine Stroke Severity After TAVR.

Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions·2024

Same author

Impact of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on Disabling Stroke After TAVR: Updated Results From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions·2024

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 20, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Comparative effectiveness research: does one size fit all?

Lauren M Kunz¹, Robert W Yeh, Sharon-Lise T Normand

¹Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, U.S.A.

Statistics in Medicine

|July 19, 2012

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Randomized trials offer benefits, but not all clinical questions are suited for them. Comparative effectiveness research can utilize observational studies alongside randomized designs, particularly in managing carotid atherosclerosis.

More Related Videos

Problem-Solving Before Instruction (PS-I): A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Problem-Solving Before Instruction (PS-I): A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Published on: September 11, 2021

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 20, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Problem-Solving Before Instruction (PS-I): A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Problem-Solving Before Instruction (PS-I): A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities

Published on: September 11, 2021

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Area of Science:

Medical Research Methodology
Clinical Epidemiology
Comparative Effectiveness Research

Background:

Randomization is a cornerstone of clinical research, minimizing bias.
However, certain clinical questions may not be ethically or practically addressed through randomization.
The management of carotid atherosclerosis presents complex clinical scenarios.

Purpose of the Study:

To argue that randomization is not universally applicable for all research questions.
To highlight the value of diverse study designs in comparative effectiveness research.
To advocate for the inclusion of observational studies in addressing specific clinical questions.

Main Methods:

The commentary discusses the application of various comparative effectiveness designs.
It uses the clinical management of carotid atherosclerosis as a case study.
The authors present a conceptual argument rather than empirical data.

Main Results:

The central argument is that randomization, while valuable, has limitations.
A variety of comparative effectiveness designs can address research questions effectively.
Observational studies are presented as a viable and necessary tool.

Conclusions:

Not all research questions can or should be answered using randomized controlled trials.
Comparative effectiveness research should embrace a spectrum of methodologies.
Observational studies play a crucial role in informing clinical decisions, especially in complex fields like carotid atherosclerosis management.