Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Randomised trials of new procedures: problems and pitfalls

L I Bonchek

    Heart (British Cardiac Society)
    |February 21, 1998
    PubMed
    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

    Twenty-two years and it just keeps going, going, going: The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Stable Angina.

    The heart surgery forum·2001
    Same author

    How should we manage suspected perioperative infarction after coronary bypass surgery?

    The American journal of cardiology·2001
    Same author

    The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Stable Angina: a continuing debate after 22 years.

    The American journal of cardiology·1999
    Same author

    Bloodless cannulation of the ascending aorta.

    Journal of cardiac surgery·1999
    Same author

    Why aren't valve sizers and prostheses labeled accurately?

    The Annals of thoracic surgery·1998
    Same author

    Minimally invasive coronary bypass: a dissenting opinion.

    Circulation·1998

    Randomized trials require objective patient allocation and adequate statistical power to avoid bias and undetected treatment differences. Comparative procedural studies or meta-analyses of clinical series are often more impactful than trials comparing medical versus procedural treatments.

    Area of Science:

    • Medical research methodology
    • Clinical trial design
    • Surgical innovation evaluation

    Background:

    • Randomized trials comparing new and established procedures must prevent prerandomization bias.
    • Patient allocation should utilize objective criteria, not subjective clinical judgment.
    • Statistical power calculations incorporating risk, follow-up length, and sample size are crucial to detect true treatment differences.

    Discussion:

    • Sufficient experience with new procedures is necessary for complication rates to stabilize before trials.
    • Participating operators should possess equal proficiency in all studied procedures.
    • Randomized trials comparing medical interventions with procedures present unique challenges and have historically had limited impact.

    Key Insights:

    • The most valuable randomized procedural studies compare one procedure against another or assess refinements to existing procedures.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Non-randomized studies can provide clinically useful information.
  • Meta-analyses of large clinical series can serve as a valuable alternative to potentially unhelpful randomized studies.

    • Outlook:

    • Future research should focus on optimizing the design of comparative procedural trials.
    • Exploring the utility of real-world evidence and meta-analysis for evaluating procedural interventions is recommended.
    • Standardizing objective criteria for patient allocation in procedural trials is essential for robust evidence generation.