Clinical trials of arrhythmia management: methods or madness

A conceptual framework for external validity

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) encourages clinicians to seek the most reputable evidence. The quality of evidence is organized in a hierarchy in which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as least biased. However, RCTs are plagued by poor generalizability, impeding the translation of clinical research to practice. Though the presence of poor external validity is known, the factors that contribute to poor generalizability have not been summarized and placed in a framework. We propose a new population-oriented conceptual framework to facilitate consistent and comprehensive evaluation of generalizability, replicability, and assessment of RCT study quality.

External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?"

In making treatment decisions, doctors and patients must take into account relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Relevance depends on external validity (or generalisability)--ie, whether the results can be reasonably applied to a definable group of patients in a particular clinical setting in routine practice. There is concern among clinicians that external validity is often poor, particularly for some pharmaceutical industry trials, a perception that has led to underuse of treatments that are effective. Yet researchers, funding agencies, ethics committees, the pharmaceutical industry, medical journals, and governmental regulators alike all neglect external validity, leaving clinicians to make judgments. However, reporting of the determinants of external validity in trial publications and systematic reviews is usually inadequate. This review discusses those determinants, presents a checklist for clinicians, and makes recommendations for greater consideration of external validity in the design and reporting of RCTs.