BMJ  2005;330:1175 (21 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1175

Paper

Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome

¹ Norwegian Health Services Research Centre, PO Box 7004, 0130 Oslo, Norway, ² National Research Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, ³ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Objective To systematically compare the outcomes of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with those in comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1 Summary of studies included in sensitivity analysis

 
Data sources Bibliographic databases, reference lists from eligible articles, medical journals, and study authors.

Review methods RCTs and cohort studies that evaluated the clinical outcomes of participants in RCTs and comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment.

Results Five RCTs (six comparisons) and 50 cohort studies (85 comparisons) provided data on 31 140 patients treated in RCTs and 20 380 comparable patients treated outside RCTs. In the five RCTs, in which patients were given the option of participating or not, the comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions considered. 73 dichotomous outcomes were compared, of which 59 reported no statistically significant differences. For patients treated within RCTs, 10 comparisons reported significantly better outcomes and four reported significantly worse outcomes. Significantly heterogeneity was found (I² = 89%) among the comparisons of 73 dichotomous outcomes; none of our a priori explanatory factors helped explain this heterogeneity. The 18 comparisons of continuous outcomes showed no significant differences in heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The overall pooled estimate for continuous outcomes of the effect of participating in an RCT was not significant (standardised mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.12).

Conclusion No strong evidence was found of a harmful or beneficial effect of participating in RCTs compared with receiving the same or similar treatment outside such trials.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Trial outcomes are applicable to all comparable patients
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

Simple problems please, and one at a time

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Participants in research

David L Sackett
BMJ 2005 330: 1164. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Antidepressant drugs and generic counselling for treatment of major depression in primary care: randomised trial with patient preference arms

Clair Chilvers, Michael Dewey, Katherine Fielding, Virginia Gretton, Paul Miller, Ben Palmer, David Weller, Richard Churchill, Idris Williams, Navjot Bedi, Conor Duggan, Alan Lee, and Glynn Harrison
BMJ 2001 322: 772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Randomised study of n of 1 trials versus standard practice

Jeffrey Mahon, Andreas Laupacis, Allan Donner, and Thomas Wood
BMJ 1996 312: 1069-1074. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• McAlister, F. A. MD MSc (2008). The "number needed to treat" turns 20 -- and continues to be used and misused. CMAJ 179: 549-553 [Full text]  
• Julian-Reynier, C., Geneve, J., Dalenc, F., Genre, D., Monnier, A., Kerbrat, P., Largillier, R., Serin, D., Rios, M., Roche, H., Jimenez, M., Tarpin, C., Maraninchi, D. (2007). Assessment of Care by Breast Cancer Patients Participating or Not Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial: A Report With the Patients' Committee for Clinical Trials of the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer. JCO 25: 3038-3044 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Steg, P. G., Lopez-Sendon, J., Lopez de Sa, E., Goodman, S. G., Gore, J. M., Anderson, F. A. Jr, Himbert, D., Allegrone, J., Van de Werf, F., for the GRACE Investigators, (2007). External Validity of Clinical Trials in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Arch Intern Med 167: 68-73 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hassett, M. J., O'Malley, A. J., Pakes, J. R., Newhouse, J. P., Earle, C. C. (2006). Frequency and cost of chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects in a population sample of women with breast cancer.. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1108-1117 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mills, E. J., Nachega, J. B., Buchan, I., Orbinski, J., Attaran, A., Singh, S., Rachlis, B., Wu, P., Cooper, C., Thabane, L., Wilson, K., Guyatt, G. H., Bangsberg, D. R. (2006). Adherence to antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa and North America: a meta-analysis.. JAMA 296: 679-690 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sackett, D. L (2005). Participants in research. BMJ 330: 1164-1164 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Extrapolation of clinical trials is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance

Zvonko Rumboldt, et al.
bmj.com, 21 May 2005 [Full text]

Confidence intervals not correctly reported

Claudia Schmoor, et al.
bmj.com, 29 May 2005 [Full text]

Confidence intervals for adjusted results

Gunn Elisabeth Vist, et al.
bmj.com, 31 May 2005 [Full text]