BMJ 1999;318:1209-1209 ( 1 May )

Education and debate

Statistics notes

Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise?

Douglas G Altman, professor of statistics in medicine, ^a J Martin Bland, professor of medical statistics. ^b

^a ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF, ^b Department of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE

Correspondence to: Professor Altman.

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Since 1991 the BMJ has had a policy of not publishing trials that have not been properly randomised, except in rare cases where this can be justified.¹ Why?

The simplest approach to evaluating a new treatment is to compare a single group of patients given the new treatment with a group previously treated with an alternative treatment. Usually such studies compare two consecutive series of patients in the same hospital(s). This approach is seriously flawed. Problems will arise from the mixture of retrospective and prospective studies, and we can never satisfactorily eliminate possible biases due to other factors (apart from treatment) that may have changed over time. Sacks et al compared trials of the same treatments in which randomised or historical controls were used and found a consistent tendency for historically controlled trials to yield more optimistic results than randomised trials.² The use of historical controls can be justified only in . . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Articles

Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement

Merrick Zwarenstein, Shaun Treweek, Joel J Gagnier, Douglas G Altman, Sean Tunis, Brian Haynes, Andrew D Oxman, David Moher for the CONSORT and Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare (Practihc) groups
BMJ 2008 337: a2390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding

Muhammad Mamdani, Kathy Sykora, Ping Li, Sharon-Lise T Normand, David L Streiner, Peter C Austin, Paula A Rochon, and Geoffrey M Anderson
BMJ 2005 330: 960-962. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design

Paula A Rochon, Jerry H Gurwitz, Kathy Sykora, Muhammad Mamdani, David L Streiner, Susan Garfinkel, Sharon-Lise T Normand, and Geoffrey M Anderson
BMJ 2005 330: 895-897. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Taking folate in pregnancy and risk of maternal breast cancer: Authors' reply

Deborah Charles, Doris Campbell, Marion H Hall, Andy R Ness, and George Davey Smith
BMJ 2005 330: 600-601. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Zwarenstein, M., Treweek, S., Gagnier, J. J, Altman, D. G, Tunis, S., Haynes, B., Oxman, A. D, Moher, D., for the CONSORT and Pragmatic Trials in Healthcare, (2008). Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 337: a2390-a2390 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Kanna, B., Gopalam, M. (2007). Prospective randomized study comparing amiodarone vs. amiodarone plus losartan vs. amiodarone plus perindopril for the prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 28: 381-381 [Full text]  
• Tiruvoipati, R., Balasubramanian, S. P., Atturu, G., Peek, G. J., Elbourne, D. (2006). Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: The way forward.. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 132: 233-240 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gluud, L. L. (2006). Bias in Clinical Intervention Research. Am J Epidemiol 163: 493-501 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mosis, G., Vlug, A. E., Mosseveld, M., Dieleman, J. P., Stricker, B. C., van der Lei, J., Sturkenboom, M. C.J.M. (2005). A Technical Infrastructure to Conduct Randomized Database Studies Facilitated by a General Practice Research Database. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12: 602-607 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Heard, K., Bebarta, V. S., Lowenstein, S. R. (2005). Methodological Standards in Human vs Animal Clinical Trials. JAMA 294: 40-40 [Full text]  
• Mamdani, M., Sykora, K., Li, P., Normand, S.-L. T, Streiner, D. L, Austin, P. C, Rochon, P. A, Anderson, G. M (2005). Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 330: 960-962 [Full text]  
• Rochon, P. A, Gurwitz, J. H, Sykora, K., Mamdani, M., Streiner, D. L, Garfinkel, S., Normand, S.-L. T, Anderson, G. M (2005). Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design. BMJ 330: 895-897 [Full text]  
• Charles, D., Campbell, D., Hall, M. H, Ness, A. R, Davey Smith, G. (2005). Taking folate in pregnancy and risk of maternal breast cancer: Authors' reply. BMJ 330: 600-601 [Full text]  
• Beckerman, H., Becher, J. G, Lankhorst, G. J (2005). Definition of a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 19: 345-346  
• Goodwin, G. M., Geddes, J. R. (2004). Introduction to Systematic Reviews. J Psychopharmacol 18: 249-250  
• Munn, J., Herbert, R. D., Gandevia, S. C. (2004). Contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Physiol. 96: 1861-1866 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Westcombe, A M, Gambles, M A, Wilkinson, S M, Barnes, K, Fellowes, D, Maher, E J, Young, T, Love, S B, Lucey, R A, Cubbin, S, Ramirez, A J (2003). Learning the hard way! Setting up an RCT of aromatherapy massage for patients with advanced cancer. Palliat Med 17: 300-307 [Abstract]  
• Chalmers, I. (2001). Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments. Int J Epidemiol 30: 1156-1164 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Altman, D. G, Schulz, K. F (2001). Statistics Notes: Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 323: 446-447 [Full text]  
• Juni, P., Altman, D. G, Egger, M. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323: 42-46 [Full text]  
• King, M. (2000). The effects of patients' and practitioners' preferences on randomized clinical trials. Palliat Med 14: 539-542  
• Harrison, J. E. (2000). Evidence-based Orthodontics--How do I assess the evidence?. J. Orthod. 27: 189-197 [Full text]  
• Chalmers, I. (1999). Why transition from alternation to randomisation in clinical trials was made. BMJ 319: 1372-1372 [Full text]  
• Forbes, L., Chinn, S., Figueroa-Munoz, J., Seed, P., Welton, A J, Vickers, M R, Cooper, J A, Meade, T W, Marteau, T M (1999). Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in RCTs?. BMJ 319: 853b-853 [Full text]  
• Altman, D. G, Bland, J M. (1999). Statistics notes: How to randomise. BMJ 319: 703-704 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>