The need for large-scale randomized evidence.

The reliable detection of moderate differences in major health outcomes that arise as a result of treatment requires large-scale randomized evidence (and the appropriate interpretation of this evidence once it has been generated). This may take the form of a single mega-trial or, exceptionally, a me...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Baigent, C
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: 1997
_version_ 1797091017778790400
author Baigent, C
author_facet Baigent, C
author_sort Baigent, C
collection OXFORD
description The reliable detection of moderate differences in major health outcomes that arise as a result of treatment requires large-scale randomized evidence (and the appropriate interpretation of this evidence once it has been generated). This may take the form of a single mega-trial or, exceptionally, a meta-analysis of many smaller randomized trials may provide worthwhile information. Small or non-randomized studies cannot generally be trusted to distinguish reliably between a moderate benefit, a moderate hazard, and a negligible difference in major outcomes. Simple design, streamlined data collection, and use of the "uncertainty principle' to guide eligibility would all encourage the recruitment of larger samples in randomized trials. Future trials need to adopt these methods in order to detect any moderate improvements in major outcomes that may await discovery.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T03:27:00Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:b966b7c7-51f4-487a-8379-2ceb966b4588
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T03:27:00Z
publishDate 1997
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:b966b7c7-51f4-487a-8379-2ceb966b45882022-03-27T05:02:34ZThe need for large-scale randomized evidence.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:b966b7c7-51f4-487a-8379-2ceb966b4588EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford1997Baigent, CThe reliable detection of moderate differences in major health outcomes that arise as a result of treatment requires large-scale randomized evidence (and the appropriate interpretation of this evidence once it has been generated). This may take the form of a single mega-trial or, exceptionally, a meta-analysis of many smaller randomized trials may provide worthwhile information. Small or non-randomized studies cannot generally be trusted to distinguish reliably between a moderate benefit, a moderate hazard, and a negligible difference in major outcomes. Simple design, streamlined data collection, and use of the "uncertainty principle' to guide eligibility would all encourage the recruitment of larger samples in randomized trials. Future trials need to adopt these methods in order to detect any moderate improvements in major outcomes that may await discovery.
spellingShingle Baigent, C
The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title_full The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title_fullStr The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title_full_unstemmed The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title_short The need for large-scale randomized evidence.
title_sort need for large scale randomized evidence
work_keys_str_mv AT baigentc theneedforlargescalerandomizedevidence
AT baigentc needforlargescalerandomizedevidence