Talk:Randomized controlled trial

message: Kudos on the limitations section, it is an accurate and concise enumeration of the consensus issues. 
Unfortunately, the sections on Randomization and Limitations are disjointed. 
It is probably easier to focus on scientific limitations and not conflict of interest biases. 
To some extent, overcoming the limitations is about effective study design, which is probably too much to summarize here. 
Nonetheless, the authors of this page have hinted at suggestions with a very well written section on "Randomization". 
But again, "Randomization" and "limitations" doesn't lead the reader to consider "ok now what do I do about it?"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.84.124 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we do about the inherent limitations? Recommendations? 

message: Why are there empty sub-headings? Guardian 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: Just noticed that the whole section under Urn randomisation is an exact copy of the section before.DanHertogs 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it happened at this edit. I'll undo it. Good catch. Burlywood 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: Challanging content: In intro paras -I dont believe randomisation ensures equal allocation - you can still have unequal allocation of confounding factors if you are unlucky. Others agree? (I have made no edits)
:For any fixed covariate, the law of large numbers suggests that the method of random assignment has balance on that covariate, and large-deviation arguments suggest that the probability of great imbalance is very small. With lots of covariates (with complicated dependencies also), it is hard to say, but it is certainly plausible that randomization will fail to balance some covariates (say of 40 or more covariates, each of which some researcher may suspect of being confounding). In fact, there is substantial concern about covariate imbalance: See recent issues of Statistical Science, e.g. by Rosenberger or Paul Rosenbaum, etc.
:I changed the introduction, to avoid the problem indicated by the previous editor (while still keeping the main message, that randomization is a good thing)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content inaccurate? 

message: Should there be a section discussing HOW random the random allocations are?  There are big statistical differences between sampling a stochastic process, using a pseudorandom number generator with adequate cycle length, and calling RAND() in Excel ... And what impact on Phase I, II or III trials might these differences have?  Is it standard practice for study designers to describe randomization techniques? Daen (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How random is random, and does it matter? 

message: This article should mention the difficulties associated with having to randomise clusters of individuals.  An example is when a single intervention must be used for all subjects at a particular location for some reason of practicality, e.g. interventions are methods of care which are randomised to clinics or hospitals, therefore patients are clustered. I've just created cluster randomised controlled trial to delve into that topic more deeply, as time permits.  Tayste (edits) 22:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clusters and correlation as a difficulty 

message: Should the article have a section on how to estimate the sample size that would be necessary in order to detect an effect of a given size?  Or is that covered somewhere else in WP?  Tayste (edits) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample size calculation 

message: The brackets in the opening paragraph make the introduction to this article read really, really badly. I'm going to try make it a bit better. Tkenna (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few further revisions to conserve some key epidemiological concepts, such as the experimental character of this study design. On a separate point, I feel many of the distinctions made in the last paragraph of the lead (ie "The terms "RCT" and randomized trial are often used synonymously, but some authors distinguish between "RCTs" which compare treatment groups with control groups not receiving treatment (as in a placebo-controlled study), and "randomized trials" which can compare multiple treatment groups with each other.[3] RCTs are sometimes known as randomized control trials.[4] RCTs are also called randomized clinical trials or randomized controlled clinical trials when they concern clinical research;[5][6][7]) are largely dated or WP:UNDUE (eg ref. 3). Consensus to reframe this paragraph and move some of the referenced material out of the lead? —MistyMorn (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, I appreciate your edits on this article. I think it reads much better now while retaining the key points. AS far as reframing the paragraph goes, you'll have no opposition from me, you're clearly competent with these matters. Regards, Tkenna (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: RCT may also refer to randomized clinical trials. How we can incorporate this information? And which article wold be better to incorporate this information. Is this the good article to put this information? --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randomized clinical trials 

message: In the article a RCT and an RCT are used concurrently. Which one should be used? --130.229.5.232 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for "an RCT" as when reading, I spell out the initials rather than the words they stand for.  Maybe there's some guidance in the WP:MOS somewhere?  Tayste (edits) 23:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

text: This APA style page suggests "to use your ears (how the acronym is pronounced), not your eyes (how it's spelled)".  Tayste (edits) 23:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  An RCT or a RCT? 

message: Currently this excellent article contains a serious error. It states that "groups receiving the experimental treatment are compared with control groups receiving no treatment (a placebo-controlled study) or a previously tested treatment (a positive-control study)."
A no treatment or wait list group is not a placebo group. A wait list group is a group that is treated (for ethical reasons) after the wait period. By way of contrast, a placebo group is a group that receives an inert substance or treatment, not no treatment. This engages the placebo response, the treatment effect of receiving something that elicits the expectation effect. The placebo effect is substantial, eliciting improvement of over 30% in most studies.
One other minor quibble; in my field (behavioral psychology) what the authors refer to as "a positive-control study" is usually called an "active treatment." Grenheldas (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placebo versus Wait List - Serious Error on Page 

message: Dr. Peters has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Peters has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Gunther Bensch & Jorg Peters, 2012. "A Recipe for Success? Randomized Free Distribution of Improved Cooking Stoves in Senegal," Ruhr Economic Papers 0325, Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Universitat Dortmund, Universitat Duisburg-Essen.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Peters's comment on this article 

message: I'm having a hard time understanding the chart at the beginning of the article.
The left and right sides after "randomized" seem identical. I would have thought that one side would have received the intervention and the other side would not have received it (what ever the intervention was, getting a placebo or getting the drug under test, for example).
So this chart is confusing. Or confused and wrong. At the very least (if it is not wrong) it needs a better explanation. Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the chart is somewhat confusing. As a minimal solution (i.e., one that does not require changing the image), I have noted in the image caption that in a controlled trial one of the interventions serves as a control. - dcljr (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the chart at the beginning of the article accurate? 

message: All the sources below from "Further reading" are 12 or more years out of date. Archiving here. Zefr (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading section