Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7270.1223

BMJ 2000;321:1223 ( 11 November )

Letters

Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

Trials in head injury are more complex than review suggests

Authors' reply

If in doubt, declare competing interests

Trials in head injury are more complex than review suggests

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

EDITOR $---$ The review by Dickinson and colleagues¹ shows a remarkably narrow view of research in head injury and virtuallyignores the need to match the design to the research question.Historically, many clinical trials have been underpowered, butthe authors' premise that the main aim of head injury trials shouldbe to detect changes of "a few per cent" in the rate of deathor disability does not apply, for example, to phase I/II trialsin the acute stage nor the later interventions used in many oftheir reviewed trials. The authors might find it useful to rereadthe article "Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?"by Yusuf et al (note the word "some" in the title).²

Several factors influence the relevant effect size and hence the size of the trial. Some potentially powerful interventionsin severe head injury are not widely practicable and are likely. . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies: Karen Dickinson, Frances Bunn, Reinhard Wentz, Phil Edwards, and Ian Roberts
BMJ 2000 320: 1308-1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]