Systematic review to determine whether participation in a trial influences outcome
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit:
- Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate2007
- External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”The Lancet, 2005
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001
- Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary careThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2000
- A randomized evaluation of early revascularization to treat shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. The (Swiss) Multicenter Trial of Angioplasty for Shock—(S)MASHEuropean Heart Journal, 1999
- Quality of life and survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving supportive care plus chemotherapy with carboplatin and etoposide or supportive care only. A multicentre randomised phase III trialEuropean Journal of Cancer, 1998
- Pregnancy outcome among non‐participants in a trial on ultrasound screeningUltrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1998
- Random versus nonrandom assignment in the evaluation of treatment for cocaine abusers.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1998
- Efficacy of Tonsillectomy for Recurrent Throat Infection in Severely Affected ChildrenNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984