Related Experiment Videos
The clinical utility of randomized controlled trials
1Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-0819, USA.
The International Journal of Eating Disorders
|May 20, 1998
Summary
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often criticized for lacking clinical relevance. However, research shows RCTs include patients as severe as those in clinical settings, suggesting their findings are generalizable.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Clinical Psychology
- Psychotherapy Research
Background:
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are foundational for evidence-based treatments.
- Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of RCT findings to real-world clinical practice.
- RCTs are often criticized for excluding specific patient groups, therapists, and treatment variations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate the generalizability of findings from RCTs.
- To assess the applicability of RCT results across diverse patient populations, therapists, and clinical settings.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and critical evaluation of existing research evidence.
- Analysis of studies examining the characteristics of participants and settings in RCTs compared to clinical practice.
Main Results:
- Existing research suggests RCTs frequently include patients with multiple and severe problems, comparable to those in clinical settings.
- The severity and complexity of patients in RCTs often mirror those encountered in routine clinical care.
Conclusions:
- The generalizability of RCT findings to clinical practice is context-dependent, varying with specific study and clinical settings.
- Future research should focus on the clinical utility of efficacy study findings across diverse patient groups, therapists, and treatment modalities.