Randomized controlled trials - The what, when, how and why.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Journal of Pediatric Urology Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.11.021
Luis H Braga, Forough Farrokhyar, M İrfan Dönmez, Caleb P Nelson, Bernhard Haid, Kathy Herbst, Massimo Garriboli, Salvatore Cascio, Anka Nieuwhof-Leppink, Martin Kaefer, Darius J Bägli, Nicholas Kalfa, Christina Ching, Magdalena Fossum, Luke Harper
{"title":"Randomized controlled trials - The what, when, how and why.","authors":"Luis H Braga, Forough Farrokhyar, M İrfan Dönmez, Caleb P Nelson, Bernhard Haid, Kathy Herbst, Massimo Garriboli, Salvatore Cascio, Anka Nieuwhof-Leppink, Martin Kaefer, Darius J Bägli, Nicholas Kalfa, Christina Ching, Magdalena Fossum, Luke Harper","doi":"10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.11.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the top of the pyramid of evidence as they offer the best answer on the efficacy of a new treatment. RCTs are true experiments in which participants are randomly allocated to receive a certain intervention (experimental group) or a different intervention (comparison group), or no treatment at all (control or placebo group). Randomization, along with other methodological features such as blinding and allocation concealment, safeguard against biases. This review will focus on parallel group RCT design as it is the most common design in the field of Pediatric Urology. RCTs can be designed using a superiority, equivalency, or non-inferiority hypothesis, and are usually preceded by a pilot, where the trial protocol is implemented in a small number of patients, mimicking the larger, definitive study. Even though regarded as the best available option to bring out scientific data, RCTs might be prone to mislead. If RCTs are small and underpowered, a difference of even one single event between groups, may completely change the trial results. To safeguard against RCTs weakness, a fragility concept of statistical significance was developed and called the Fragility Index (FI). RCTs may not be appropriate, ethical, or feasible for all surgical interventions. They may have limitations such as prohibitive cost and unrealistic large sample sizes. Nearly 60 % of surgical research questions cannot be answered by RCTs. Therefore, clinical practice should be based on the best available evidence on a given topic, regardless of the study design. However, even in these situations, conclusions drawn from observational studies must be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":16747,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.11.021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the top of the pyramid of evidence as they offer the best answer on the efficacy of a new treatment. RCTs are true experiments in which participants are randomly allocated to receive a certain intervention (experimental group) or a different intervention (comparison group), or no treatment at all (control or placebo group). Randomization, along with other methodological features such as blinding and allocation concealment, safeguard against biases. This review will focus on parallel group RCT design as it is the most common design in the field of Pediatric Urology. RCTs can be designed using a superiority, equivalency, or non-inferiority hypothesis, and are usually preceded by a pilot, where the trial protocol is implemented in a small number of patients, mimicking the larger, definitive study. Even though regarded as the best available option to bring out scientific data, RCTs might be prone to mislead. If RCTs are small and underpowered, a difference of even one single event between groups, may completely change the trial results. To safeguard against RCTs weakness, a fragility concept of statistical significance was developed and called the Fragility Index (FI). RCTs may not be appropriate, ethical, or feasible for all surgical interventions. They may have limitations such as prohibitive cost and unrealistic large sample sizes. Nearly 60 % of surgical research questions cannot be answered by RCTs. Therefore, clinical practice should be based on the best available evidence on a given topic, regardless of the study design. However, even in these situations, conclusions drawn from observational studies must be interpreted with caution.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
随机对照试验-什么,何时,如何和为什么。
随机对照试验(rct)是证据金字塔的顶端,因为它们为新疗法的疗效提供了最好的答案。随机对照试验是真正的实验,参与者被随机分配接受某种干预(实验组)或不同的干预(对照组),或根本不接受治疗(对照组或安慰剂组)。随机化,连同其他方法学特征,如盲法和分配隐藏,可以防止偏差。本综述将重点关注平行组RCT设计,因为它是儿科泌尿外科领域最常见的设计。随机对照试验可以采用优势、等效或非劣效假设进行设计,通常在试验之前进行试验,在少量患者中实施试验方案,模仿更大的、确定的研究。尽管随机对照试验被认为是获得科学数据的最佳选择,但它可能容易产生误导。如果随机对照试验规模小且效果不佳,则组间即使只有一个事件的差异,也可能完全改变试验结果。为了防止随机对照试验的弱点,开发了一个统计显著性的脆弱性概念,称为脆弱性指数(FI)。随机对照试验可能不适合、不符合伦理或不可行的所有手术干预。它们可能有局限性,比如成本过高和不现实的大样本量。近60%的外科研究问题不能通过随机对照试验来回答。因此,无论研究设计如何,临床实践都应基于给定主题的最佳可用证据。然而,即使在这些情况下,从观察性研究中得出的结论也必须谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pediatric Urology
Journal of Pediatric Urology PEDIATRICS-UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
15.00%
发文量
330
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pediatric Urology publishes submitted research and clinical articles relating to Pediatric Urology which have been accepted after adequate peer review. It publishes regular articles that have been submitted after invitation, that cover the curriculum of Pediatric Urology, and enable trainee surgeons to attain theoretical competence of the sub-specialty. It publishes regular reviews of pediatric urological articles appearing in other journals. It publishes invited review articles by recognised experts on modern or controversial aspects of the sub-specialty. It enables any affiliated society to advertise society events or information in the journal without charge and will publish abstracts of papers to be read at society meetings.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Editorial Board Histologic analysis of gonadal tissue in patients with Turner syndrome and Y chromosome material Comment on ‘Histologic analysis of gonadal tissue in patients with Turner syndrome and Y chromosome material’ Histologic analysis of gonadal tissue in patients with Turner syndrome and Y chromosome material
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1