mteb/BrightProPsychologyRetrieval huggingface dataset:
A 2011 study done to disclose possible  conflicts of interests
 in underlying research
studies used for medical meta-analyses reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found
that conflicts of interests in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were
rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses included 11 from general medicine
journals; 15 from specialty medicine journals, and 3 from the  Cochrane
 Database of
Systematic Reviews. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509
randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of these, 318 RCTs reported funding
sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 RCTs reported author
conflict of interest disclosures, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry
financial ties with one or more authors. The information was, however, seldom
reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported RCT funding sources and
none reported RCT author-industry ties. The authors concluded "without
acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial
ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers' understanding and appraisal
of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised."  [101]
.") ,  5 :359–63.
https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/18.4.359
11. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2 60240-2) .
Traditionally, blinded RCTs have been classified as "single-blind", "double-
blind", or "triple-blind"; however, in 2001 and 2006 two studies showed that
these terms have different meanings for different people.  [60]  [61]  The
2010  CONSORT Statement  specifies that authors and
editors should not use the terms "single-blind", "double-blind", and "triple-
blind"; instead, reports of blinded RCT should discuss "If done, who was
blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care
providers, those assessing outcomes) and how."  [5]
> Ronald A. Fisher was "interested in application and in the popularization of
> statistical methods and his early book _ Statistical Methods for Research
> Workers  _ , published in 1925, went through many
> editions and motivated and influenced the practical use of statistics in
> many fields of study. His _Design of Experiments_ (1935) [promoted]
> statistical technique and application. In that book he emphasized examples
> and how to design experiments systematically from a statistical point of
> view. The mathematical justification of the methods described was not
> stressed and, indeed, proofs were often barely sketched or omitted
> altogether ..., a fact which led  H. B. Mann  to fill the gaps with a rigorous mathematical treatment in his well
> known treatise,  Mann (1949)  ."
RCTs are considered to be the most reliable form of  scientific evidence
 in the  hierarchy of evidence
 that influences
healthcare policy and practice because RCTs reduce spurious causality and
bias. Results of RCTs may be combined in  systematic reviews
 which are increasingly being
used in the conduct of  evidence-based practice  . Some examples of scientific
organizations' considering RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs to be the
highest-quality evidence available are:
###  Characteristics of selected trials
14. Afonso MM, Bénard A, Chapron A, et al. Les soins primaires : une définition du champ pour développer la recherche. Epidemiol Public Health Rev Epidémiologie. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique. 2018;66:157–62 doi :  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2017.09.004  .
*  Behavior change  "Behavior change \(public health\)")
*  Theories 
*  Family planning 
*  Health promotion 
*  Human nutrition 
*  Healthy diet 
*  Preventive nutrition 
*  Hygiene 
*  Food safety 
*  Hand washing 
*  Infection control 
*  Oral hygiene 
*  Occupational safety and health 
*  Human factors and ergonomics 
*  Hygiene 
*  Controlled Drugs 
*  Injury prevention 
*  Medicine 
*  Nursing 
*  Patient safety 
*  Organization 
*  Pharmacovigilance 
*  Safe sex 
*  Sanitation 
*  Emergency 
*  Fecal–oral transmission 
*  Open defecation 
*  Sanitary sewer 
*  Waterborne diseases 
*  Worker 
*  School hygiene 
*  Smoking cessation 
*  Vaccination 
*  Vector control
* First author name
Food hygiene and
safety management  |
* As of 1998, the  National Health and Medical Research Council  of Australia designated "Level I" evidence as that "obtained from a  systematic review  of all relevant randomised controlled trials" and "Level II" evidence as that "obtained from at least one properly designed randomised controlled trial."  [86]
* Since at least 2001, in making  clinical practice guideline  recommendations the  United States Preventive Services Task Force  has considered both a study's design and its  internal validity  as indicators of its quality.  [87]  It has recognized "evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial" with good  internal validity  (i.e., a rating of "I-good") as the highest quality evidence available to it.  [87]
* The  GRADE Working Group  concluded in 2008 that "randomised trials without important limitations constitute high quality evidence."  [88]
* For issues involving "Therapy/Prevention, Aetiology/Harm", the  Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine  as of 2011 defined "Level 1a" evidence as a systematic review of RCTs that are consistent with each other, and "Level 1b" evidence as an "individual RCT (with narrow  Confidence Interval  )."  [89]
* Sample size
Brittany Morgon
####  Adaptive
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.005
RCTs can be classified as "explanatory" or "pragmatic."  [45]  Explanatory
RCTs test  efficacy  in a research
setting with highly selected participants and under highly controlled
conditions.  [45]  In contrast, pragmatic RCTs (pRCTs) test  effectiveness
 in everyday practice with
relatively unselected participants and under flexible conditions; in this way,
pragmatic RCTs can "inform decisions about practice."  [45]
A 2005 review found 83 randomized experiments in criminology published in
1982–2004, compared with only 35 published in 1957–1981.  [111]  The authors
classified the studies they found into five categories: "policing",
"prevention", "corrections", "court", and "community".  [111]  Focusing only
on offending behavior programs, Hollin (2008) argued that RCTs may be
difficult to implement (e.g., if an RCT required "passing sentences that would
randomly assign offenders to programmes") and therefore that experiments with
 quasi-experimental design  are still necessary.  [112]
###  **_Recommended Tools & Resources: _ **
* Received  :  15 March 2022
###  Trial registration
.") ]. The second, highly related to the first one reason is that in most RCTs, patients are recruited in secondary- or tertiary-care settings [  9  ] rather than in primary-care. However, as compared with secondary- or tertiary-care setting patients, primary-care patients have less severe disease and more undifferentiated symptoms [  10 :1746–a.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.20.1746-a
Interpretation of results  |
Clinical endpoint  , 
Virulence  ,  Infectivity  ,  Mortality rate  , 
Morbidity  ,  Case fatality rate
 ,  Specificity and
sensitivity 
,  Likelihood-ratios  ,  Pre- and post-test probability
.") ] but more multi-morbidity [  11 60240-2
If a  disruptive innovation  in medical technology is developed, it may be difficult to test
this ethically in an RCT if it becomes "obvious" that the control subjects
have poorer outcomes—either due to other foregoing testing, or within the
initial phase of the RCT itself. Ethically it may be necessary to abort the
RCT prematurely, and getting ethics approval (and patient agreement) to
withhold the innovation from the control group in future RCT's may not be
feasible.  [ _ citation needed   _ ]
Anti-MLM
Agnès Dechartres
Generalized linear model  |
Results were consistent when adjusting on each item of the risk of bias (Fig.
 4  ).
Linear regression  |
10. Sonis J. Applicability of clinical trial results to primary care. JAMA. 1998;280(20):1746–a.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.20.1746-a  .
Q: Don’t all of these models fall under the “hierarchical linear model”
label? With nested observations?

This example does. Each observation is nested within a county. Not all mixed
models do, though. Linguistics, psychology, ecology, and agriculture, in
particular, seem to have many situations where you have partial nesting, 
crossed random factors  , etc. Nesting of random factors doesn’t always
work.
Q: There are no nested data here right?

There is some  nesting  in this design. We have these factors in
the model, and I’ve specified each as Fixed(F) or Random (R):

Decade (F)
Rural (F)
County (R)

Decade is  crossed  with both Rural and County. Each county is measured at every
Decade (except for some sparse missing data, which isn’t really enough to call
them not crossed). Likewise, every value of Rural (yes and no) is measured at
every Decade.

Counties are _mostly_ but not completely nested within Rural. That means that
most counties are classified as either Yes, Rural for all 5 Decades. And other
counties are classified as No, Urban for all 5 Decades. But some switch from
Yes, Rural to No, Urban at some point during the 50 years of the study. The
mixed model can handle this semi-nesting just fine.

And of course, the observations themselves, which are not specified in the
model, are nested within the combination of County and Decade.
Another classification of RCTs categorizes them as "superiority trials",
"noninferiority trials", and "equivalence trials", which differ in methodology
and reporting.  [46]  Most RCTs are superiority trials, in which one
intervention is hypothesized to be superior to another in a  statistically
significant  way.
[46]  Some RCTs are noninferiority trials "to determine whether a new
treatment is no worse than a reference treatment."  [46]  Other RCTs are
equivalence trials in which the hypothesis is that two interventions are
indistinguishable from each other.  [46]
*  Risk–benefit ratio 
*  Systematic review 
*  Replication 
*  Meta-analysis 
*  Intention-to-treat analysis
For other RCT study designs, "  CONSORT extensions
 " have been published, some examples are:
*  In vitro 
*  In vivo 
*  Animal testing 
*  Animal testing on non-human primates 
*  First-in-man study 
*  Multicenter trial 
*  Seeding trial 
*  Vaccine trial
Health behavioral
sciences  |
*  Sampling  "Sampling \(statistics\)")
*  Cluster 
*  Stratified 
*  Opinion poll 
*  Questionnaire 
*  Standard error
*  ** Category  **
*  ** Commons  **
*  ** WikiProject  **
Conniffe D (1990–1991).  "R. A. Fisher and the development of statistics—a
view in his centenary year"  .
_Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland_ . Vol.
XXVI, no. 3. Dublin:  Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland
 . p. 87.  hdl 
"Hdl \(identifier\)") :  2262/2764  . 
ISSN  "ISSN \(identifier\)")  0081-4776
 .
A **randomized controlled trial** (or **randomized control trial** ;  [2]
**RCT** ) is a form of  scientific experiment  used to control factors not under direct experimental
control. Examples of RCTs are  clinical trials  that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, 
medical devices  ,  diagnostic
procedures  , diets or
other medical treatments.  [3]  [4]
*  Regression 
*  Manova 
*  Principal components 
*  Canonical correlation 
*  Discriminant analysis 
*  Cluster analysis 
*  Classification 
*  Structural equation model 
*  Factor analysis 
*  Multivariate distributions 
*  Elliptical distributions 
*  Normal
*  Crossover study
##  Commitment and Consistency
*  Scientific experiment 
*  Statistical design 
*  Control 
*  Internal  and  external   validity  "Validity \(statistics\)")
*  Experimental unit 
*  Blinding
##  Analysis of data
* Caribbean
*  Caribbean Public Health Agency 
* China
*  Center for Disease Control and Prevention 
* Europe
*  Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 
*  Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 
* India
*  Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 
* Canada
*  Health Canada 
*  Public Health Agency 
* U.S.
*  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
*  City and county health departments 
*  Council on Education for Public Health 
*  Public Health Service 
*  World Health Organization 
*  World Toilet Organization 
* (  Full list  )
Elsa Tavernier & Agnès Caille
List of included meta-analyses ( _n_ = 76).
Flowchart of four phases (enrollment,
allocation, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel
randomized trial of two groups (in a controlled trial, one of the
interventions serves as the control), modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated
Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement  [1]
#  5 Psychology Tricks Behind MLM Mind Games
8. Uijen AA, Bakx JC, Mokkink HGA, et al. Hypertension patients participating in trials differ in many aspects from patients treated in general practices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007:6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.05.015  .
.") ]. The first reason is that many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) include highly selected patients, which restricts the generalizability of their results [  7 :82–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736\(04\)17670-8
####  Legal Things
* "It eliminates bias in treatment assignment," specifically  selection bias  and  confounding  .
* "It facilitates blinding (masking) of the identity of treatments from investigators, participants, and assessors."
* "It permits the use of probability theory to express the likelihood that any difference in outcome between treatment groups merely indicates chance."
The advantages of proper  randomization  in RCTs include:  [47]
Social statistics  |
4. Lugtenberg M, Zegers-van Schaick JM, Westert GP, Burgers JS. Why don’t physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners. Implement Sci. 2009;4:54.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-54  .
Trial design was further influenced by the large-scale  ISIS
 trials on  heart attack  treatments that were conducted in the 1980s.  [24]
Instantly, your friend  messages you enthusiastically
 ,
painting a picture of incredible results, financial gains, and a supportive
community. It seems too good to be true, but the promises are so enticing that
you can't help but consider joining the ranks of this MLM.
By the late 20th century, RCTs were recognized as the standard method for
"rational therapeutics" in medicine.  [25]  As of 2004, more than 150,000 RCTs
were in the  Cochrane Library  .
[23]  To improve the reporting of RCTs in the medical literature, an
international group of scientists and editors published  Consolidated
Standards of Reporting Trials
 (CONSORT) Statements in 1996, 2001 and 2010, and these have
become widely accepted.  [1]  [5]  Randomization is the process of assigning
trial subjects to treatment or control groups using an element of chance to
determine the assignments in order to reduce the bias.
Frequency domain  |
* Research
*  Open access 
* Published:  22 December 2022
###   **Additional file 1.**
|   Statistical theory  |
*  Permuted-block randomization  or blocked randomization: a "block size" and "allocation ratio" (number of subjects in one group versus the other group) are specified, and subjects are allocated randomly within each block.  [48]  For example, a block size of 6 and an allocation ratio of 2:1 would lead to random assignment of 4 subjects to one group and 2 to the other. This type of randomization can be combined with "  stratified randomization  ", for example by center in a  multicenter trial  , to "ensure good balance of participant characteristics in each group."  [5]  A special case of permuted-block randomization is _random allocation_ , in which the entire sample is treated as one block.  [48]  The major disadvantage of permuted-block randomization is that even if the block sizes are large and randomly varied, the procedure can lead to selection bias.  [50]  Another disadvantage is that "proper" analysis of data from permuted-block-randomized RCTs requires stratification by blocks.  [54]
* Adaptive biased-coin randomization methods (of which urn randomizatio is the most widely known type): In these relatively uncommon methods, the probability of being assigned to a group decreases if the group is overrepresented and increases if the group is underrepresented.  [48]  The methods are thought to be less affected by selection bias than permuted-block randomization.  [54]
1. Ekesbo R, Midlöv P, Gerward S, et al. Lack of adherence to hypertension treatment guidelines among GPs in southern Sweden-a case report-based survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:34.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-34  .
Due to the costs of running RCTs, these usually only inspect one variable or
very few variables, rarely reflecting the full picture of a complicated
medical situation; whereas the  case report  , for example, can detail many aspects of the patient's  medical
 situation (e.g.  patient history
 ,  physical examination
 ,  diagnosis
 ,  psychosocial  aspects, follow up).  [100]
*  Glossary 
*  Category 
*   Mathematics portal 
*  Statistical outline 
*  Statistical topics
*  Log-rank test
CBM Training Club
####  BMC Medical Research Methodology
* ** Analysis of variance (Anova)  **
*  Cochran's theorem 
*  **Manova** ( _multivariate_ ) 
*  **Ancova** ( _covariance_ )
.") ] (high or unclear risk vs low risk).
* Whether an RCT should be stopped early due to interim results. For example, RCTs may be stopped early if an intervention produces "larger than expected benefit or harm", or if "investigators find evidence of no important difference between experimental and control interventions."  [5]
* The extent to which the groups can be analyzed exactly as they existed upon randomization (i.e., whether a so-called "  intention-to-treat analysis  " is used). A "pure" intention-to-treat analysis is "possible only when complete outcome data are available" for all randomized subjects;  [69]  when some outcome data are missing, options include analyzing only cases with known outcomes and using  imputed  "Imputation \(statistics\)") data.  [5]  Nevertheless, the more that analyses can include all participants in the groups to which they were randomized, the less bias that an RCT will be subject to.  [5]
* Whether  subgroup analysis  should be performed. These are "often discouraged" because  multiple comparisons  may produce false positive findings that cannot be confirmed by other studies.  [5]
FOMO is real, and MLMs know it.
Although the principle of  clinical equipoise  ("genuine uncertainty within the expert medical
community... about the preferred treatment") common to clinical trials  [26]
has been applied to RCTs, the  ethics  of RCTs have
special considerations. For one, it has been argued that equipoise itself is
insufficient to justify RCTs.  [27]  For another, "collective equipoise" can
conflict with a lack of personal equipoise (e.g., a personal belief that an
intervention is effective).  [28]  Finally,  Zelen's design
 , which has been used for some
RCTs, randomizes subjects _before_ they provide informed consent, which may be
ethical for RCTs of  screening  "Screening
\(medicine\)") and selected therapies, but is likely unethical "for most
therapeutic trials."  [29]  [30]
###  Subgroup and sensitivity analyses
###  Sample size
Folder:  Services
* Food
*  Additive 
*  Chemistry 
*  Engineering 
*  Microbiology 
*  Processing 
*  Safety 
*  Safety scandals 
*  Genetically modified food 
*  Good agricultural practice 
*  Good manufacturing practice 
*  HACCP 
*  ISO 22000
"Allocation concealment" (defined as "the procedure for protecting the
randomization process so that the treatment to be allocated is not known
before the patient is entered into the study") is important in RCTs.  [56]  In
practice, clinical investigators in RCTs often find it difficult to maintain
impartiality. Stories abound of investigators holding up sealed envelopes to
lights or ransacking offices to determine group assignments in order to
dictate the assignment of their next patient.  [48]  Such practices introduce
selection bias and  confounders 
(both of which should be minimized by randomization), possibly distorting the
results of the study.  [48]  Adequate allocation concealment should defeat
patients and investigators from discovering treatment allocation once a study
is underway and after the study has concluded. Treatment related side-effects
or adverse events may be specific enough to reveal allocation to investigators
or patients thereby introducing bias or influencing any subjective parameters
collected by investigators or requested from subjects.  [ _ citation needed
 _ ]
##  Reporting of results
*  Nelson–Aalen estimator
*  Nonlinear regression 
*  Nonparametric 
*  Semiparametric 
*  Isotonic 
*  Robust 
*  Heteroscedasticity 
*  Homoscedasticity
3. Carlsen B, Norheim OF. « what lies beneath it all? » – an interview study of GPs’ attitudes to the use of guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:218.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-218  .
Summary tables  |
###  Conflict of interest dangers
But this rule makes it SO MUCH EASIER
.") ] than non-Cochrane reviews. We performed an analysis of MAs of binary outcomes, so our results cannot be extrapolated to MAs with continuous outcomes. MAs with continuous outcomes have more subjective outcomes, are less frequently blinded [  21  ]and have higher heterogeneity [  22  ] than those with binary outcomes. Finally, another limitation may be the definition of primary care settings. Primary care is often difficult and poorly defined in the literature and can include a large range of professions and professionals [ [ 14 ](/articles/10.1186/s12874-022-01815-2#ref-CR14 "Afonso MM, Bénard A, Chapron A, et al. Les soins primaires : une définition du champ pour développer la recherche. Epidemiol Public Health Rev Epidémiologie. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique. 2018;66:157–62 doi :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2017.09.004
*  Cohen's kappa 
*  Contingency table 
*  Graphical model 
*  Log-linear model 
*  McNemar's test 
*  Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel statistics
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-34
*  Home 
*  About 
*  Articles 
*  Submission Guidelines 
*  Collections 
*  Join the Board 
*  Submit manuscript
Statistical inference
* Randomized controlled trial
*  Scientific experiment 
*  Blind experiment 
*  Open-label trial 
*  Adaptive clinical trial 
*  Platform trial
Article   CAS
  Google Scholar
For the 33 MAs assessing pharmacological interventions, the combined ROR was
estimated at 0.90 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.07), and for the 43 MAs assessing non-
pharmacological interventions, the combined ROR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.90 to
1.14). The interaction test was not statistically significant ( _P_ = 0.97).
We did not find a significant interaction in the other subgroup analyses (Fig.
 3  ).
Among 614 trials selected, 230 were PC-RCTs and 384 ST-RCTs (Table  2
 ). The median sample size was 276
(IQR 146–561.5) for PC-RCTs and 139 (IQR 66–284.3) for ST-RCTs. The median
number of centers was 13 (IQR 3–40.5) and 1 (IQR 1–3), respectively. A total
of 61 (62.9%) PC-RCTs were at low risk of bias for blinding of outcome
assessors as compared with 83 (43.4%) ST-RCTs. More characteristics of the PC-
RCTs included in this study are available in Additional file  3
 .
*  Outline 
*  Index
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.21.2543
|   Center  |
Biological and
epidemiological statistics  |
Description of the 76 meta-analyses.