The prompted optional randomization trial: a new design for comparative effectiveness research
- PMID: 23078493
- PMCID: PMC3519302
- DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301036
The prompted optional randomization trial: a new design for comparative effectiveness research
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for medical evidence because randomization provides the best-known protection against confounding of results. Randomization has practical and ethical problems that limit the number of trials that can be conducted, however. A different method for collecting clinical data retains the statistically useful properties of randomization without incurring its practical and ethical challenges. A computerized prompt introduces a random element into clinical decision-making that can be instantly overridden if it conflicts with optimal patient care. This creates a weak form of randomization that still eliminates the effect of all confounders, can be carried out without disturbing routine clinical care, and arguably will not require research-grade informed consent.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review.J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Dec;31(12):1511-1518. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3780-5. Epub 2016 Jul 6. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27384536 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Ethical pitfalls in neonatal comparative effectiveness trials.Neonatology. 2014;105(4):350-1. doi: 10.1159/000360650. Epub 2014 May 30. Neonatology. 2014. PMID: 24931328
-
[When the information provided to participants of a comparative effectiveness trial ends up in the court: The opening of Pandora's box?].Med Clin (Barc). 2016 Jul 15;147(2):76-80. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2016.01.008. Epub 2016 Mar 6. Med Clin (Barc). 2016. PMID: 26961391 Spanish. No abstract available.
-
Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions.Value Health. 2017 Jul-Aug;20(7):902-908. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.005. Epub 2017 May 16. Value Health. 2017. PMID: 28712619
-
Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.Clin Trials. 2020 Jun;17(3):253-263. doi: 10.1177/1740774519896799. Epub 2020 May 5. Clin Trials. 2020. PMID: 32367741 Review.
Cited by
-
How to obtain informed consent for research.Breathe (Sheff). 2018 Jun;14(2):145-152. doi: 10.1183/20734735.001918. Breathe (Sheff). 2018. PMID: 29875834 Free PMC article.
-
Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review.J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Dec;31(12):1511-1518. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3780-5. Epub 2016 Jul 6. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27384536 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Bennett WL, Wilson LM, Bolen Set al.Oral Diabetes Medications for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: An Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 27. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. AHRQ publication 11-EHC038-EF - PubMed
-
- Mushlin AI, Ghomrawi H. Health care reform and the need for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(3):e6. - PubMed
-
- Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BMet al.Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1223–1231 - PubMed
-
- Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins; 2008
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
