Randomised
controlled trials
In a randomised controlled
trial, participants are randomly allocated by a process equivalent to the
flip of a coin to either one intervention (such as a drug) or another (such
as placebo treatment or a different drug). Both groups are followed up
for a specified period and analysed in terms of outcomes defined at the
outset (death, heart attack, serum cholesterol level, etc). Because, on
average, the groups are identical apart from the intervention, any differences
in outcome are, in theory, attributable to the intervention.
Some trials comparing
an intervention group with a control group are not randomised trials. Random
allocation may be impossible, impractical, or unethical - for example,
in a trial to compare the outcomes of childbirth at home and in hospital.
More commonly, inexperienced investigators compare one group (such as patients
on ward A) with another (such as patients on ward B). With such designs,
it is far less likely that the two groups can reasonably be compared with
one another on a statistical level.
A randomised controlled
trial should answer questions such as the following:
|
|
Is this drug better
than placebo or a different drug for a particular disease? |
|
|
Is a leaflet better
than verbal advice in helping patients make informed choices about the
treatment options for a particular condition? |
It should be remembered,
however, that randomised trials have several disadvantages (see box) Remember,
too, that the results of a trial may have limited applicability as a result
of exclusion criteria (rules about who may not be entered into the study),
inclusion bias (selection of subjects from a group unrepresentative of
everyone with the condition), refusal of certain patient groups to give
consent to be included in the trial, analysis of only predefined "objective"
endpoints which may exclude important qualitative aspects of the intervention,
and publication bias (the selective publication of positive results). |
Cohort
studies
In a cohort study,
two (or more) groups of people are selected on the basis of differences
in their exposure to a particular agent (such as a vaccine, a drug, or
an environmental toxin), and followed up to see how many in each group
develop a particular disease or other outcome. The follow up period in
cohort studies is generally measured in years (and sometimes in decades),
since that is how long many diseases, especially cancer, take to develop.
Note that randomised controlled trials are usually begun on patients (people
who already have a disease), whereas most cohort studies are begun on subjects
who may or may not develop disease.
A special type of
cohort study may also be used to determine the prognosis of a disease (what
is likely to happen to someone who has it). A group of patients who have
all been diagnosed as having an early stage of the disease or a positive
result on a screening test is assembled (the inception cohort) and followed
up on repeated occasions to see the incidence (new cases per year) and
time course of different outcomes.
The world's most
famous cohort study, which won its two original authors a knighthood, was
undertaken by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, Sir Richard Doll, and, latterly,
Richard Peto. They followed up 40,000 British doctors divided into four
cohorts (non-smokers, and light, moderate, and heavy smokers) using both
all cause mortality (any death) and cause specific mortality (death from
a particular disease) as outcome measures. Publication of their 10 year
interim results in 1964, which showed a substantial excess in both lung
cancer mortality and all cause mortality in smokers, with a "dose-response"
relation (the more you smoke, the worse your chances of getting lung cancer),
went a long way to showing that the link between smoking and ill health
was causal rather than coincidental. The 20 year and 40 year results of
this momentous study (which achieved an impressive 94% follow up of those
recruited in 1951 and not known to have died) illustrate both the perils
of smoking and the strength of evidence that can be obtained from a properly
conducted cohort study. |