Randomized controlled trials: the control group dilemma revisited

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff.

SETTING

A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff.

RESULTS

Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN23800982.

The application of special technologies in diagnostic anatomic pathology: is it consistent with the principles of evidence-based medicine?

Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have emphasized the need to consider the quality of different sources of medical information and have proposed various methods to integrate available "best evidence" into rules, guidelines and other diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic models. The various factors that can affect the internal validity of studies in anatomic pathology, such as interobserver variability, use of retrospective rather than prospective data and others, are reviewed. The need for testing for the external validity of the results of anatomic pathology studies is introduced, using "test sets" of cases that have not been used to generate the classification or prognostic models. This methodology has been seldom used in anatomic pathology to validate the generalizability of various "entities," usefulness of diagnostic tests under different conditions and other information. Basic concepts of meta-analysis for research synthesis are introduced; these methods have been seldom used in anatomic pathology to integrate information from different studies using quantitative techniques rather than summary tables that merely list the results of various publications. The potential use of decision analysis and value of information analysis for the adoption of new tests is briefly discussed.

What is the research question? A case study in the early stages of design of a randomised controlled trial for a complementary therapy

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used to evaluate aspects of the effectiveness of complementary therapies. Given the individualised and non-blindable nature of many treatments, the design of such studies is often not trivial. One decision to be made is what specific research question is to be asked, of the many potential questions that could be asked. This paper describes discussions that took place during the design of a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of herbal practitioners for menopausal women, and illustrates the tribulations associated with such a process. Specifically, it discusses implications of the choice of control group. It is critically important that a relevant and answerable research question is posed.

CAM evaluation: what are the research questions?

Much effort is being directed towards the evaluation of CAM therapies. Yet evaluation is often encouraged before truly considering the research questions which need to be asked. Research questions like 'Does this CAM therapy work?' must be clearly distinguished from 'Does this particular CAM treatment work?' and the latter question needs to be replaced by even more specific ones like 'Does it work when administered by therapist X?' and 'Is therapist X effective?'. Suggestions for the study of the therapeutic process and the evaluation of therapist effectiveness are presented.