Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T21:59:21.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Urgent Need for Successful Randomized Controlled Trials in Neurosciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Samuel Wiebe
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Michael D. Hill
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2011

References

1 Sackett, DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32: 5163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 MRC Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee. Streptomycin treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. Br Med J. 1948;ii:769–82.Google Scholar
3 Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, RJ, Altman, DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 The EC/IC Bypass Study Group. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:1191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Sackett, DL, Hoey, J. Why randomized controlled trials fail but needn’t: a new series is launched. CMAJ. 2000 May 2;162(9): 1301–2.Google ScholarPubMed
6 Hebert, PC, Fergusson, DA. Are we keeping research participants safe enough? CMAJ. 2010 July 13;182(10):E428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Lehrer, J. The truth wears off. Is there something wrong with the scientific method? The New Yorker. 2010 December 13.Google Scholar
8 Ioannidis, JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005 July 13;294(2):218–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed