Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27194
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSerpa Neto, Ary-
dc.contributor.authorGoligher, Ewan C-
dc.contributor.authorHodgson, Carol L-
dc.date2021-07-30-
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-09T05:49:30Z-
dc.date.available2021-08-09T05:49:30Z-
dc.date.issued2021-07-30-
dc.identifier.citationCurrent Opinion in Critical Care 2021; online first: 30 Julyen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/27194-
dc.description.abstractRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) have come to be accepted as the gold standard for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutics and interventions in medicine. In this paper, we aim to describe some evolving concepts associated with the design and conduct of RCTs and outline new approaches aiming to increase efficiency and reduce costs. A well-powered and performed RCT is usually a study involving several different centers from different geographical areas that enrolls a large number of patients in diverse clinical settings. Altogether, these features increase the generalizability of the study and make the rapid implementation of the findings more likely. However, this does not come without cost. Among several possible alternatives to conventional RCTs, the most important ones are related to the unit of randomization (individual vs. cluster), study design (conventional vs. adaptive), randomization scheme (fixed vs. response-adaptive), data collection (conventional case report forms vs. registry-embedded) and statistical approach (frequentist vs. Bayesian). While conventional RCTs remain the gold standard for generating evidence, new trial designs may be considered to reduce sample size and costs while improving trial efficiency and power. However, they raise new challenges for testing feasibility, conduct, ethical oversight and statistical analysis.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.titleHow cutting-edge trial design can assess outcomes.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleCurrent Opinion in Critical Careen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazilen
dc.identifier.affiliationInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Torontoen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University of Health Network Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Canadaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash Universityen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourneen
dc.identifier.affiliationData Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centreen
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/MCC.0000000000000854en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.pubmedid34334624
local.name.researcherSerpa Neto, Ary
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptIntensive Care-
crisitem.author.deptData Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

30
checked on Dec 26, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.