Is a controlled randomised trial the non-plus-ultra design? A contribution to discussion on comparative, controlled, non-randomised trials

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundClinical studies provide formalised experience for evidence-based medicine (EBM). Many people consider a controlled randomised trial (CRT, identical to a randomised controlled trial RCT) to be the non-plus-ultra design. However, CRTs also have limitations. The problem is not randomisation itself but informed consent for randomisation and masking of therapies according to today's legal and ethical standards. We do not want to de-rate CRTs, but we would like to contribute to the discussion on clinical research methodology.SituationInformed consent to a CRT and masking of therapies plainly select patients. The excellent internal validity of CRTs can be counterbalanced by poor external validity, because internal and external validity act as antagonists. In a CRT, patients may feel like guinea pigs, this can decrease compliance, cause protocol violations, reduce self-healing properties, suppress unspecific therapeutic effects and possibly even modify specific efficacy.DiscussionA control group (comparative study) is most important for the degree of evidence achieved by a trial. Study control by detailed protocol and good clinical practice (controlled study) is second in importance and randomisation and masking is third (thus the sequence CRT instead of RCT). Controlled non-randomised trials are just as ambitious and detailed as CRTs.RecommendationWe recommend clinicians and biometricians to take high quality controlled non-randomised trials into consideration more often. They combine good internal and external validity, better suit daily medical practice, show better patient compliance and fewer protocol violations, deliver estimators unbiased by alienated patients, and perhaps provide a clearer explanation of the achieved success