IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v16y2007i5p357-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Role of Randomized Clinical Trials in Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Michael C. Christensen
  • Alan Moskowitz
  • Ardesheer Talati
  • Richard R. Nelson
  • Nathan Rosenberg
  • Annetine C. Gelijns

Abstract

The placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial (RCT) holds unique advantages for evaluating medical technologies, and figures prominently in clinical drug investigations. However, medicine, like other social sectors, has experienced a movement toward evidence-based practice and policy decision-making that involves the evaluation of complex non-pharmacological interventions that frequently challenge the use of the RCT. Even with pharmaceuticals used in clinical practice, the application of RCTs has its limitations and challenges. This paper argues that both the modality of therapy (drugs, devices, and procedures) and the stage of technological evolution are important determinants of an optimal evaluative design. The practicality of conducting an RCT is inversely proportional to the complexity of the healthcare intervention. Iterative modifications of medical devices, provider-specific practices, and an evolving clinical knowledge-base are just some of the problems plaguing technology assessments. Lessons learned on the role of randomized versus observational study designs may prove valuable for other social sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael C. Christensen & Alan Moskowitz & Ardesheer Talati & Richard R. Nelson & Nathan Rosenberg & Annetine C. Gelijns, 2007. "On the Role of Randomized Clinical Trials in Medicine," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 357-370.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:16:y:2007:i:5:p:357-370
    DOI: 10.1080/10438590600982426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10438590600982426
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10438590600982426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nelson, Richard R. & Buterbaugh, Kristin & Perl, Marcel & Gelijns, Annetine, 2011. "How medical know-how progresses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1339-1344.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:16:y:2007:i:5:p:357-370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.