- Richard Doll
- Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE
- Accepted 6 October 1998
Clinical trials before 1946
Important scientific advances seldom occur out of the blue but can be seen in retrospect to have been the culmination of processes that have built up over the years. This was certainly true of the introduction of the new method of conducting clinical trials, first reported in 1948, that has played such a major part in the progress of clinical medicine in the last half century. When I qualified in medicine in 1937, new treatments were almost always introduced on the grounds that in the hands of professor A or in the hands of a consultant at one of the leading teaching hospitals, the results in a small series of patients (seldom more than 50) had been superior to those recorded by professor B (or some other consultant) or by the same investigator previously. Under these conditions variability of outcome, chance, and the unconscious (leave alone the conscious) in the selection of patients brought about apparently important differences in the results obtained; consequently, there were many competing new treatments. The treatment of peptic ulcer was, perhaps, more susceptible to claims of benefit than most other chronic diseases; so that in 1948, when I began to investigate it, I was soon able to prepare a list of treatments beginning with each letter of the alphabet. Standard treatments, for their part, tended to be passed from one textbook to another without ever being adequately evaluated.
Summary points
Claims of therapeutic benefit are often misleading unless there are concurrent control groups
When treatments are allocated to alternate patients there is a risk of bias in the selection of patients
Randomly allocating individuals after entry into a trial eliminates bias and provides a proper estimate of random error
Randomisation can be done within strata of the likely response to treatment, if clinicians can define the strata …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Should UK membership exams be held overseas? Yes
Published 9 February 2012
Why not use ultrasound for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer for both the exclusion criteria for recruitment and for diagnosis as outcome variable
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Can the severity of menopausal symptoms be predicted?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Does the BMJ have a particular ideology to pursue in assisted dying?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 9 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Wakefield sues BMJ over MMR articles (5 responses)
Published 10 Jan 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012