Log in | Register

Understanding clinical trials: emerging methodological issues

Gordon S. Doig| Fiona Simpson
Understanding the Disease
Volume 40, Issue 11 / November , 2014

Pages 1755 - 1757

No abstract available.

References

  1. Opal SM, Dellinger RP, Vincent JL, Masur H, Angus DC (2014) The next generation of sepsis clinical trial designs: what is next after the demise of recombinant human activated protein C? Crit Care Med 42:1714–1721
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  2. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359:614–618
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  3. Mulla SM (2013) Views on allocation concealment methods in randomized clinical trials: a survey of clinical trialists. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/13394
  4. Doig GS, Simpson F (2005) Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care 20:187–191
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  5. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, Engoru C, Olupot-Olupot P, Akech SO et al (2011) Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med 364:2483–2495
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  6. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  7. Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB (2010) A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 63:142–153
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  8. White IR, Thompson SG (2005) Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 24:993–1007
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  9. Schemper M, Smith TL (1990) Efficient evaluation of treatment effects in the presence of missing covariate values. Stat Med 9:777–784
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  10. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE (2002) Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 21:2917–2930
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  11. Bender R, Vervolgyi V (2010) Estimating adjusted NNTs in randomised controlled trials with binary outcomes: a simulation study. Contemp Clin Trials 31:498–505
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  12. Hernandez AV, Steyerberg EW, Habbema DF (2004) Covariate adjustement in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements. J Clin Epidemiol 57:454–460
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  13. Turner EL, Perel P, Clayton T, Edwards P, Hernandez AV, Roberts I et al (2012) Covariate adjustment increased power in randomized controlled trials: an example in traumatic brain injury. J Clin Epidemiol 65:474–481
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  14. Takala J (2009) Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials. Crit Care Med 37:S80–S90
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  15. Molenberghs G, Beunckens C, Jansen I, Thijs H, Van Steen K, Verbeke G, Kenward, MG (2005) The analysis of incomplete data. In: Dmitrienko A, Molenberghs G, Chuang-Stein C, Offen W (eds) Analysis of clinical trials using SAS: a practical guide. SAS, Cary, pp 269–354

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement