Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 23, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and
Natasha Fernandes1, Dianne Bryant2, Lauren Griffith2
1Faculty of Medicine (Natasha Fernandes, Mathur), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bryant, Marsh, Moyer) and Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (Bryant), The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Bryant, Griffith), Department of Medicine (Nisha Fernandes), Health Sciences Library (Bhatnagar), Department of Family Medicine (Riva) and Division of Gynecologic Oncology (Reade), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Faculty of Dentistry (El-Rabbany), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; School of Medical and Applied Sciences (Kean), Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (Somerville), London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ont. natasha.fernandes31@gmail.com.
Background:
It is unclear whether participation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), irrespective of assigned treatment, is harmful or beneficial to participants. We compared outcomes for patients with the same diagnoses who did ("insiders") and did not ("outsiders") enter RCTs, without regard to the specific therapies received for their respective diagnoses.
Methods:
By searching the MEDLINE (1966-2010), Embase (1980-2010), CENTRAL (1960-2010) and PsycINFO (1880-2010) databases, we identified 147 studies that reported the health outcomes of "insiders" and a group of parallel or consecutive "outsiders" within the same time period. We prepared a narrative review and, as appropriate, meta-analyses of patients' outcomes.
Results:
We found no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcomes between "insiders" and "outsiders" in the 23 studies in which the experimental intervention was ineffective (standard mean difference in continuous outcomes -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1 to 0.04) or in the 7 studies in which the experimental intervention was effective and was received by both "insiders" and "outsiders" (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13). However, in 9 studies in which an effective intervention was received only by "insiders," the "outsiders" experienced significantly worse health outcomes (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.12).
Interpretation:
We found no evidence to support clinically important overall harm or benefit arising from participation in RCTs. This conclusion refutes earlier claims that trial participants are at increased risk of harm.
Related Concept Videos
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,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blinding
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications
