Evaluating the evidence for evidence-based medicine: are randomized clinical trials less flawed than other forms of peer-reviewed medical research?
Related Experiment Videos
R Grant Steen1, Stephen R Dager
1MediCC! Medical Communications Consultants, LLC, 103 Van Doren Place, Chapel Hill, NC 27517, USA. g_steen_medicc@yahoo.com
Abstract:
Evidence-based medicine considers randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to be the strongest form of evidence for clinical decision making. To test the hypothesis that RCTs have fewer methodological flaws than non-RCTs, limitations of 17,591 RCTs and 39,029 non-RCTs were characterized. Panels of experts assembled to write meta-analyses evaluated this literature to determine which articles should be included in 316 meta-analytic reviews. Overall, 38.7% of RCTs evaluated were excluded from review for an identified flaw. Commonly identified flaws in RCTs were as follows: insufficient data provided to evaluate the study (9.6% of 17,591 RCTs); inadequate randomization (9.0%); inadequate blinding (4.9%); and duplicative publication (4.4%). Overall, 20.2% of all published medical research has an identified methodological flaw, with RCTs having as many limitations as non-RCTs.
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blinding
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Regression Toward the Mean