Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:57:10.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Randomised Clinical Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

By
Siladitya Bhattacharya  and
Ashalatha Shetty
Edited by
P. M. Shaughn O'Brien  and
Fiona Broughton Pipkin
P. M. Shaughn O'Brien
Affiliation:
Keele University School of Medicine
Fiona Broughton Pipkin
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Introduction to Research Methodology for Specialists and Trainees , pp. 71 - 82
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pocock, SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley; 1983.Google Scholar
Sacks, H, Chalmers, TC, Smith, H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982;72:233–40.Google Scholar
El-Refaey, H, Rajasekar, D, Abdalla, M, Calder, L, Templeton, A. Induction of abortion with Mifepristone (RU 486) and oral or vaginal Misoprostol. N Engl J Med 1995;332:983–7.Google Scholar
Goodwin, TM, Valenzuela, GJ, Silva, H, Creasy, G. Dose ranging study of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban in the treatment of preterm labour. Atosiban Study Group. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:331–6.Google Scholar
Collaborative Eclampsia Trial Group. Which anti-convulsant for women with eclampsia: Evidence from the Collaborative Eclampsia Trial. Lancet 1995;345:1455–63.Google Scholar
The Future II Study Group. Quadrivalent Vaccine against Human Papillomavirus to prevent High Grade Cervical Lesions. N Eng J Med 2007;356:1915–27Google Scholar
CLASP Collaborative Group. Low dose aspirin in pregnancy and early childhood development follow-up of the collaborative low dose aspirin study in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;102:861–8.Google Scholar
Hannah, ME, Whyte, H, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, S, Amankwah, K, Cheng, M, et al. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917–27.Google Scholar
Whyte, H, Hannah, ME, Saigal, S, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, S, Amankwah, K, et al. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned caesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:864–71.Google Scholar
Norman, J, Mackenzie, F, Owen, P, Mactier, H, Cooper, S, Calder, A, et al. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy (STOPPIT): a randomized double blind placebo controlled study and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373:2034–40.Google Scholar
Roland, M, Torgerson, DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? BMJ 1998;316:285.Google Scholar
Goverde, AJ, McDonnell, J, Vermeiden, JPW, Schats, R, Rutten, FFH, Schoemaker, J. Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomized trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2000;355:3–18.Google Scholar
Matonhodze, BB, Hofmeyr, GJ, Levin, J. Labour induction at term – a randomized trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol alone, and dinoprostone. S Afr Med J 2003;93:375–9.Google Scholar
McAlister, FA, Strauss, SE, Sackett, DL, Altman, DG. Analysis and reporting of factorial trials. JAMA 2003;289:2545–53.Google Scholar
Fender, GRK, Prentice, A, Gorst, T, Nixon, RM, Duffy, SW, Day, NE, et al. Randomized controlled trial of educational package on management of menorrhagia in primary care: The Anglia menorrhagia education study. BMJ 1999;318:1246–50.Google Scholar
Morrison, J, Carroll, L, Twaddle, S, Cameron, I, Grimshaw, J, Leyland, A, et al. Pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate guidelines for the management of infertility across the primary care–secondary care interface. BMJ 2001;322:1–7.Google Scholar
Kerry, SM, Bland, JM. The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ 1998;316 (7142):1455.Google Scholar
Torgerson, D, Sibbald, B. Understanding clinical trials: What is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998;316 (7128):360.Google Scholar
Brocklehurst, P. Partially randomized patient preference trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1332–5.Google Scholar
Cooper, KG, Parkin, DE, Garret, AM, Grant, AM. A randomized comparison of medical and hysteroscopic management in women consulting a gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1360–6.Google Scholar
Piaggio, G, Pinol, APY. Use of the equivalence approach in reproductive health clinical trials. Stat Med 2001;20:3571–87.Google Scholar
Jones, B, Jarvis, P, Lewis, JA, Ebbutt, AF. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996;313:36–9.Google Scholar
Lilford, RJ, Thornton, JG, Braunholtz, D. Clinical trials and rare diseases: A way out of a conundrum. BMJ 1995;311:1621–5.Google Scholar
Roland, M, Torgerson, DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what outcomes should be measured? BMJ 1998;317:1075–80.Google Scholar
Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605–13.Google Scholar
Patrick, DL, Bergner, M. Measurement of health status in the 1990s. Annu Rev Public Health 1990;11:165–83.Google Scholar
Fayers, PM, Sprangers, MA. Understanding self-rated health. Lancet 2002;359:187–8.Google Scholar
Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The, MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Bombardier, C, Tugwell, PX. Measuring disease specific quality of life in clinical trials. Can Med Assoc J 1986;134:889–95.Google Scholar
Kelleher, CJ, Cardozo, LD, Khullar, V, Salvatore, S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1374–9.Google Scholar
Endicott, J, Nee, J, Harrison, W. Daily record of severity of problems (DRSP): Reliability and validity. Archives of Womens Ment Health 2006;9(1):41.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S, Barnard, A, Wong, J, Jenkinson, C. Development of an endometriosis quality-of-life instrument: The Endometriosis Health Profile-30. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:258–64.Google Scholar
Schneider, HP, Heinemann, LA, Rosemeier, HP, Potthoff, P, Behre, HM. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): Comparison with Kupperman index and quality-of-life scale SF-36. Climacteric 2000;3:50–8.Google Scholar
Williams, B. Patient satisfaction: A valid concept? Soc Sci Med 1994;38:509–16.Google Scholar
Sitzia, J, Wood, N. Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1829–43.Google Scholar
Bury, M. Doctors, Patients and Interactions in Health Care. In: Bury, M, editor. Health and Illness in a Changing Society. London: Routledge; 1997. p. 77–109.Google Scholar
Williams, B, Coyle, J, Healy, D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: An explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1351–9.Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Davies, L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991;7:561–73.Google Scholar
Altman, DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.Google Scholar
Ashok, PW, Kidd, A, Flett, GM, Fitzmaurice, A, Graham, W, Templeton, A. A randomized comparison of medical abortion and surgical vacuum aspiration at 10–13 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2002;17:92–8.Google Scholar
Vail, A, Gardner, E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1000–4.Google Scholar
Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomized trials: chance not choice. Lancet 2002;359:515–19.Google Scholar
Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, RJ, Altman, DG. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Pham, B, Jones, A, Cook, DJ, Jadad, AR, Moher, M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis. Lancet 1998;352:609–13.Google Scholar
Juni, P, Altman, D, Egger, M. Assessing quality of controlled trials. BMJ 2001;323:42–6.Google Scholar
Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA, Altman, DG, Hayes, RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomized controlled trials: Survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 1996;312:742–7.Google Scholar
Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA. Sample size slippages in randomized trials: Exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002;359:781–5.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Schultz, KF, Altman, DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–4.Google Scholar
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament & of the Council of 4th April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the relating member states to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities L121; 34–44.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×