Characteristics of Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery From 2008 to 2020: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence to evaluate 2 or more surgical interventions. Surgical RCTs, however, face unique challenges in design and implementation. Objective: To evaluate the design, conduct, and reporting of contemporary surgical RCTs. Evidence Review: A literature search performed in the 2 journals with the highest impact factor in general medicine as well as 6 key surgical specialties was conducted to identify RCTs published between 2008 and 2020. All RCTs describing a surgical intervention in both experimental and control arms were included. The quality of included data was assessed by establishing an a priori protocol containing all the details to extract. Trial characteristics, fragility index, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool), pragmatism (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 [PRECIS-2]), and reporting bias were assessed. Findings: A total of 388 trials were identified. Of them, 242 (62.4%) were registered; discrepancies with the published protocol were identified in 81 (33.5%). Most trials used superiority design (329 [84.8%]), and intention-to-treat as primary analysis (221 [56.9%]) and were designed to detect a large treatment effect (50.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 24.7%-63.3%). Only 123 trials (31.7%) used major clinical events as the primary outcome. Most trials (303 [78.1%]) did not control for surgeon experience; only 17 trials (4.4%) assessed the quality of the intervention. The median sample size was 122 patients (IQR, 70-245 patients). The median follow-up was 24 months (IQR, 12.0-32.0 months). Most trials (211 [54.4%]) had some concern of bias and 91 (23.5%) had high risk of bias. The mean (SD) PRECIS-2 score was 3.52 (0.65) and increased significantly over the study period. Most trials (212 [54.6%]) reported a neutral result; reporting bias was identified in 109 of 211 (51.7%). The median fragility index was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). Multiplicity was detected in 175 trials (45.1%), and only 35 (20.0%) adjusted for multiple comparisons. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, the size of contemporary surgical trials was small and the focus was on minor clinical events. Trial registration remained suboptimal and discrepancies with the published protocol and reporting bias were frequent. Few trials controlled for surgeon experience or assessed the quality of the intervention.

Blinding and Patient-Reported Outcome Completion Rates in US Food and Drug Administration Cancer Trial Submissions, 2007-2017.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly included in submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Open-label designs are frequent in cancer trials. Between-arm differences in PRO missingness may affect results. We sought to compare PRO completion rates between study arms in randomized open-label and double-blind cancer trials. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials for oncology and malignant hematology products submitted to the FDA in fiscal years 2007-2017 were identified using internal FDA databases. Applicant study reports were reviewed to assess PRO use and reporting of completion rates. Completion rates were collected for each PRO and compared between arms. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Ninety-six trials for anticancer products from 2007 to 2017 contained PROs. Fifty-one (53.1%) were randomized, controlled trials with useable information on PRO completion. The median completion rate for investigational arms was 89.7% (range = 33.7-100.0%) and 88.2% (range = 11.0-100.0%) for control arms. At six months, seven double-blind trials had gaps of at least 10% in at least one PRO between arms; in four trials, these gaps favored the control arm (median difference = 11.5%, range = 10.0-17.0%). For open-label trials, four trials had such gaps, all of which favored the investigational arm (median difference = 28.5%, range = 10.0-69.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that provided interpretable PRO completion information, completion rates were high. Most trials had comparable completion rates between arms. However, when large between-arm completion rate differences existed, differences favoring the experimental arm were more common in open-label trials compared with double-blind trials. Procedures must be put in place to improve reporting of PRO completion and reduce missingness, particularly in open-label trials.

Ensayos clínicos por conglomerados (clusters) / Clinical trials by conglomerates (clusters)

Un ensayo clínico aleatorizado por conglomerados se da cuando se aleatorizan grupos (clusters) de individuos a las distintas ramas. Puede ser la única o mejor opción de diseño ante determinadas circunstancias: si hay un claro agrupamiento (biológico o funcional) en donde algunos individuos de análisis son más parecidos entre sí que otros; si las intervenciones a evaluar se realizan a nivel del conglomerado; cuando hay riesgo de contaminación; o por practicidad, costos o conveniencia. Entre los problemas más importantes que conllevan se encuentran posibles sesgos (especialmente cuando el reclutamiento de los individuos se realiza luego de la aleatorización, o no existe ceguera), así como mayor complejidad en el diseño y análisis. Asimismo, si no se tienen en cuenta la agrupación de individuos por conglomerados para el cálculo del tamaño muestral o del análisis de los datos, se podrían obtener resultados incorrectos. Estos estudios deben explicitar, además de lo habitualmente reportado: por qué se decidió realizar un diseño por conglomerados; si los objetivos, intervenciones y puntos finales a evaluar apuntan a nivel del conglomerado, individual, o ambos; describir los criterios de inclusión a nivel del conglomerado e individual; mostrar cómo se hicieron el cálculo del tamaño muestral y los análisis considerando los conglomerados; aclarar si los pacientes, profesionales actuantes e investigadores estaban ciegos a las ramas de investigación; y discutir la generalizabilidad de los resultados, entre otros. Si bien tienen mayor complejidad, estos estudios son cada vez más frecuentes. Es un diseño muy útil si está bien desarrollado y es importante conocer sus particularidades. (AU)

We perform a cluster randomized controlled trial when we randomize groups (or clusters) of individuals (whether humans, cells, or clinics) to different study arms, and not simply individuals. It can be the only or best study design option in certain circum-stances: if there is a clear grouping, when some subjects of analysis are more similar among them than the rest; if interventions to be evaluated are made at cluster level; when there is risk of "contamination" or cross-over; or because of practicality, costs or convenience according to researchers judgment. Cluster trials are associated with important issues: risk of bias (especially when individuals recruitment is made after randomization, or if there was no blinding); and the need of more complex design and analysis. If we do not take clusters into account in the sample size estimation and data analysis, we could get misleading results.When reporting these studies, researchers should make explicit (in addition to standard reporting requirements): the rationale for a cluster design; if the objectives, interventions and endpoints are for clusters, individuals or both; the inclusion criteria for clusters and individuals; how they did sample size estimations and data analysis considering cluster design; if patients, health care profes-sionals and researchers were blind; and if results can be generalized. Even though cluster randomized controlled trials are more complex, these studies are increasingly common. It is a very useful design, if correctly done. And it is important to understand its main characteristics. (AU)

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE:We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification.METHOD:A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75).RESULTS:A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy.CONCLUSIONS:Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.

Guidelines for time-to-event end point definitions in breast cancer trials: results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials)†.

BACKGROUND: Using surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival, is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials. However, the definitions of several of these time-to-event (TTE) end points are imprecisely which limits interpretation and cross-trial comparisons. The estimation of treatment effects may be directly affected by the definitions of end points. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for randomized cancer clinical trials (RCTs) in breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of randomized trials or guidelines. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points based on a validated consensus method that formalize the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definitions of TTE end points commonly used in RCTs for breast cancer are provided for non-metastatic and metastatic settings. CONCLUSION: The use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparisons of trial results and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to those involved in the design, conducting, reporting, or assessment of RCT.

Guidelines for time-to-event end point definitions in sarcomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) trials: results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials)†.

BACKGROUND: The use of potential surrogate end points for overall survival, such as disease-free survival (DFS) or time-to-treatment failure (TTF) is increasingly common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer. However, the definition of time-to-event (TTE) end points is rarely precise and lacks uniformity across trials. End point definition can impact trial results by affecting estimation of treatment effect and statistical power. The DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End points in CANcer trials) aims to provide recommendations for definitions of TTE end points. We report guidelines for RCT in sarcomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). METHODS: We first carried out a literature review to identify TTE end points (primary or secondary) reported in publications of RCT. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts proposed recommendations for the definitions of these end points. Recommendations were developed through a validated consensus method formalizing the degree of agreement among experts. RESULTS: Recommended guidelines for the definition of TTE end points commonly used in RCT for sarcomas and GIST are provided for adjuvant and metastatic settings, including DFS, TTF, time to progression and others. CONCLUSION: Use of standardized definitions should facilitate comparison of trials' results, and improve the quality of trial design and reporting. These guidelines could be of particular interest to research scientists involved in the design, conduct, reporting or assessment of RCT such as investigators, statisticians, reviewers, editors or regulatory authorities.

Clinical trial registration in oral health journals.

Prospective registration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represents the best solution to reporting bias. The extent to which oral health journals have endorsed and complied with RCT registration is unknown. We identified journals publishing RCTs in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in the Journal Citation Reports. We classified journals into 3 groups: journals requiring or recommending trial registration, journals referring indirectly to registration, and journals providing no reference to registration. For the 5 journals with the highest 2012 impact factors in each group, we assessed whether RCTs with results published in 2013 had been registered. Of 78 journals examined, 32 (41%) required or recommended trial registration, 19 (24%) referred indirectly to registration, and 27 (35%) provided no reference to registration. We identified 317 RCTs with results published in the 15 selected journals in 2013. Overall, 73 (23%) were registered in a trial registry. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively and 32% did not report trial registration in the published article. The proportion of trials registered was not significantly associated with editorial policies: 29% with results in journals that required or recommended registration, 15% in those that referred indirectly to registration, and 21% in those providing no reference to registration (P = 0.05). Less than one-quarter of RCTs with results published in a sample of oral health journals were registered with a public registry. Improvements are needed with respect to how journals inform and require their authors to register their trials.

Treatment of refractory pain with botulinum toxins--an evidence-based review.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated information on the role of botulinum toxins in the treatment of refractory pain based on prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. DESIGN OF THE REVIEW: Class I and class II articles were searched online through PubMed (1966 to the end of January 2011) and OvidSP including ahead-of-print manuscripts. RESULTS: Level A evidence (two or more class I studies-established efficacy): pain of cervical dystonia, chronic migraine, and chronic lateral epicondylitis. Level B evidence (one class I or two class II studies-probably effective and recommended): post-herpetic neuralgia, post-traumatic neuralgia, pain of plantar fasciitis, piriformis syndrome, and pain in total knee arthroplasty. Level C evidence (one class II study-possibly effective, may be used at discretion of clinician): allodynia of diabetic neuropathy, chronic low back pain, painful knee osteoarthritis, anterior knee pain with vastus lateralis imbalance, pelvic pain, post-operative pain in children with cerebral palsy after adductor hip release surgery, post-operative pain after mastectomy, and sphincter spasms and pain after hemorrhoidectomy. Level U evidence (efficacy not proven due to diverse class I and II results): myofascial pain syndrome and chronic daily headaches. Studies in episodic migraine and tension headaches have shown treatment failure (level A-negative). CONCLUSION: Evidence-based data indicate that administration of botulinum toxin in several human conditions can alleviate refractory pain. The problems with some study designs and toxin dosage are critically reviewed.

Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme.

BACKGROUND: Previous research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios. METHODS: Data on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials. RESULTS: Data from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.

Validity of Qualis database as a predictor of evidence hierarchy and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials: a case study in dentistry

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Qualis database in identifying the levels of scientific evidence and the quality of randomized controlled trials indexed in the Lilacs database. METHODS: We selected 40 open-access journals and performed a page-by-page hand search, to identify published articles according to the type of study during a period of six years. Classification of studies was performed by independent reviewers assessed for their reliability. Randomized controlled trials were identified for separate evaluation of risk of bias using four dimensions: generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. The Qualis classification was considered to be the outcome variable. The statistical tests used included Kappa, Spearman's correlation, Kendall-tau and ordinal regressions. RESULTS: Studies with low levels of scientific evidence received similar Qualis classifications when compared to studies with high levels of evidence. In addition, randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias for the generation of allocation sequences and allocation concealment were more likely to be published in journals with higher Qualis levels. DISCUSSION: The hierarchy level of the scientific evidence as classified by type of research design, as well as by the validity of studies according to the bias control level, was not correlated or associated with Qualis stratification. CONCLUSION: Qualis classifications for journals are not an approximate or indirect predictor of the validity of randomized controlled trials published in these journals and are therefore not a legitimate or appropriate indicator of the validity of randomized controlled trials.

Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND: The Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general orthopaedic journals. METHODS: Two assessors identified orthopaedic journals that reported a level of evidence rating in their abstracts from January 2003 to December 2004 by searching the instructions for authors of the highest impact general orthopaedic journals. Based upon a priori eligibility criteria, two assessors hand searched all issues of the eligible journal from 2003-2004 for RCTs. The assessors extracted the demographic information and the evidence rating from each included RCT and scored the quality of reporting using the reporting quality assessment tool, which was developed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Scores were conducted in duplicate, and we reached a consensus for any disagreements. We examined the correlation between the level of evidence rating and the Cochrane reporting quality score. RESULTS: We found that only the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume (JBJS-A) used a level of evidence rating from 2003 to 2004. We identified 938 publications in the JBJS-A from January 2003 to December 2004. Of these publications, 32 (3.4%) were RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria. The 32 RCTs included a total of 3543 patients, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 514 patients. Despite being labelled as the highest level of evidence (Level 1 and Level II evidence), these studies had low Cochrane reporting quality scores among individual methodological safeguards. The Cochrane reporting quality scores did not differ significantly between Level I and Level II studies. Correlations varied from 0.0 to 0.2 across the 12 items of the Cochrane reporting quality assessment tool (p > 0.05). Among items closely corresponding to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria assessors achieved substantial agreement (ICC = 0.80, 95% CI:0.60 to 0.90). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that readers should not assume that 1) studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies. One should address methodological safeguards individually.

Appraising the quality of randomized controlled trials: inter-rater reliability for the OTseeker evidence database.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: 'OTseeker' is an online database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews relevant to occupational therapy. RCTs are critically appraised and rated for quality using the 'PEDro' scale. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the PEDro scale before and after revising rating guidelines. METHODS: In study 1, five raters scored 100 RCTs using the original PEDro scale guidelines. In study 2, two raters scored 40 different RCTs using revised guidelines. All RCTs were randomly selected from the OTseeker database. Reliability was calculated using Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC (model 2,1)]. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was 'good to excellent' in the first study (Kappas >or= 0.53; ICCs >or= 0.71). After revising the rating guidelines, the reliability levels were equivalent or higher to those previously obtained (Kappas >or= 0.53; ICCs >or= 0.89), except for the item, 'groups similar at baseline', which still had moderate reliability (Kappa = 0.53). In study 2, two PEDro scale items, which had their definitions revised, 'less than 15% dropout' and 'point measures and variability', showed higher reliability. In both studies, the PEDro items with the lowest reliability were 'groups similar at baseline' (Kappas = 0.53), 'less than 15% dropout' (Kappas

Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference: how completely are trials reported?

PURPOSE: To assess how completely trials published in conference proceedings are reported and whether this has changed over time. METHODS: Conference abstracts published at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference (1992 and 2002) were read to identify reports of randomized trials. A checklist was devised (based on CONSORT) to assess the completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Four-hundred and ninety-four abstracts reporting randomized trials were identified; 209 in 1992 and 285 in 2002. More trials included "randomized" in the title in 2002 compared to 1992 (54% versus 36%). Almost no trials stated the method of allocation concealment, 12% stated the method of blinding, 95% described eligible participants and 98% described the interventions. Ninety-five per cent reported the number of participants in each trial. The median number of participants per trial increased over time; 120 in 1992 and 209 in 2002 (P < 0.01). In 1992, 67% of trials reported the number of participants analysed, compared to only 49% in 2002 (P < 0.01), 28% reported or suggested intention to treat analysis dropping to 15% in 2002. Twenty-nine abstracts in 2002 and five in 1992 reported no results, with a promise of presentation at the meeting. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of conference abstracts for trials should be improved to further facilitate understanding of their conduct and validity.

The search for level I evidence in solid-tumor oncology.

BACKGROUND: We have developed a method to identify, filter, review, and distribute the published level I evidence for solid tumor oncology. METHODS: A standardized MEDLINE search identified prospective randomized controlled trials (PRCTs) in solid tumor oncology. Only PRCTs with therapeutic end points were included. All references were reviewed by a surgical oncology fellow in consultation with experts in the field. The full citations were imported into a comprehensive database. Data on statistical methods according to the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials statement were tabulated along with reviewer's comments. A designation of Ia was given to articles that were well designed and significant contributions to their field. The database powers a dynamic, easily searchable Web site on our intranet and is available in personal digital assistant (PDA) format. RESULTS: By using standard search criteria, only .03% of the 11 million articles listed in MEDLINE are PRCTs concerning therapy for solid organ malignancies. Approximately 14% of reviewed articles were given a designation of Ia. Having comprehensive data readily available with intranet access or PDAs during conferences enhances their educational value and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an exciting tool that uses a highly trained filter to screen and record the medical data available to the clinician. This information has been made available and portable by using the Internet and PDAs.

The role of prospective randomized clinical trials in pediatric surgery: state of the art?

PURPOSE: This study sought to determine the role of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the evolution of pediatric surgical practice. METHODS: The authors used a computer-assisted literature search to identify all clinical trials related to pediatric surgery published in the English-language literature from 1966 through 1999. Each article was reviewed in detail for purpose, content, conduct, and quality of the trial. The authors assessed quality with a previously validated instrument (Chalmers Qualitative Assessment). RESULTS: The authors identified 134 RCTs related to pediatric surgery over the past 33 years. This accounts for 0.17% of 80,377 articles published in the field. The areas of surgery studied were analgesia 65 (49%), antibiotics 17 (13%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) 9 (7%), gastrointestinal, burns, oncology, minimally invasive surgery, vascular access, congenital anomalies, and trauma (each <5%). Only 16 (12%) trials compared 2 surgical therapies, 9 (7%) compared a medical versus a surgical therapy, and 109 (81%) compared 2 medical therapies in surgical patients. Fourteen (10%) RCTs were funded by peer-reviewed agencies. Only 17 (13%) RCTs included a biostatistician as an author or a consultant. Trial design included calculation of sample size and statistical power in 21 (16%) RCTs. Method of randomization was reported in only 51 (38%). The test statistic and observed probability value was reported in 15 (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials are used infrequently to answer questions related to pediatric surgery. When RCTs are utilized, they often suffer from poor trial design, inadequate statistical analysis, and incomplete reporting. Pediatric surgery could benefit from increased expertise, funding, and participation in clinical trials.

[Clinical studies on emergency medicine. An application oriented classification, its planning and realization]. / Klinische Studien in der Notfallmedizin. Eine anwendungsorientierte Klassifikation ihrer Planung und Durchführung.

Clinical studies are usually conceived of as controlled randomized trials, as retrospective patient statistics or as single case reports. However, such a classification is too narrow and overlooks many other forms of study designs. This review, therefore, offers a more encompassing and practical classification of clinical studies for the field of emergency medicine. Randomized controlled trials fulfill scientific criteria at the highest level (gold standard): comparison, repeatability, objective measurement. At the same time, randomized trials also have to comply with demanding ethical criteria and must be justifiable in the individual patient. Therefore, comparable uncertainty with regard to the superiority of the treatment options under investigation is a sine qua non. In addition to randomized trials, six other groups of clinical trials have the potential to solve scientific questions in emergency medicine: observational studies, decision analysis, meta analysis, public health care studies, case reports and descriptive summary statistics and studies on ethical problems. This variability in trial designs calls for a clinically oriented methodologist; the concept and institutionalization of theoretical surgery has been a response to this demand. All study types in this review are illustrated by examples in emergency medicine. Literature for advanced reading in particular trial methodologies can be found in the reference list. A checklist summarizes all elements for designing and conducting randomized trials in emergency medicine. All clinical trials striving for a high standard of quality--whether randomized or not--depend on the following prerequisites:professional organization, time effort, a supportive social environment and a scientific culture.

When is a negative study not negative?

Results of Phase III randomized clinical trials can be categorized into three groups: positive, null, and negative. The jargon used in discussing results of comparative studies requires clarification because misclassification can result in incorrect interpretation. A positive result indicates that the experimental therapy(ies) is(are) superior to standard therapy. A null result indicates that no statistically significant difference between therapies was found; hence, standard therapy should not be replaced. A negative result indicates that the experimental therapy had a deleterious effect compared to standard therapy. This article presents a discussion of these categories and examples of each.