© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
NEUROSCIENCE FOR NEUROLOGISTS
How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials
1 Neurosciences Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
2 Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Steff C Lewis
Neurosciences Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK; steff.lewis@ed.ac.uk
In final revised form 24 November 2003
Accepted 24 November 2003
Keywords: randomised controlled trials; bias
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
These days, all clinical trials should be reported using the CONSORT guidelines1 (table 1
); indeed JNNP recommends this in its instructions for authors. However, not all trials are reported in this way, and many journals do not insist on it. Thus some trials may have been carried out adequately but reported inadequately, while others have been carried out inadequately. Our aim in this article is to guide clinicians in what to look for in a report of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), so they can assess whether the trial was done adequately; we do not intend it to be a guide on how to do an RCT, as there are many such guides available.2
|
View this table: [in a new window] Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a randomised trial (from the CONSORT statement) |
The two crucial principles in clinical research are to minimise bias and to increase precision. If a study is not designed
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Hollin, C. R.
(2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister?. Criminal Justice
8: 89-106
[Abstract] -
Swamy, R. S., Embleton, N. D.
(2006). Red Blood Cell Transfusions in Preterm Infants: Is There a Difference Between Restrictive and Liberal Criteria?. Pediatrics
117: 257-258
[Full Text] -
(2004). From the Library. Br. J. Ophthalmol.
88: 726-726
[Full Text]
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Submit a response
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when eLetters are posted
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- Citation Map
Services
- Email this link to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
