Abstract
The special interest group on Reconciling Subject Differences was centered around the issue that the results from randomized clinical trials do not predict response to therapies in clinical practice, and around the hypothesis that this might be explained by differences in subjects selected for clinical trials compared to those treated in routine practice.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
The Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence
Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomiz...
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is t...
Retrospective comparison of the original and revised McDonald criteria in a general neurology practice in Ireland
Background The McDonald criteria were introduced in 2001 as guidelines to facilitate early and accurate diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). They were revised in 2005. Although...
Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?
Randomised controlled trials and observational studies are often seen as mutually exclusive, if not opposing, methods of clinical research. Two recent reports, however, identifi...
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2005
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2475-6
- Citations
- 6
- Access
- Closed