Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 5/2005

01-05-2005

Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research

Authors: Bertrand Millat, M.D., Frédéric Borie, M.D., Abe Fingerhut, M.D., FACS

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 5/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

The limitations associated with the traditional randomized controlled design as applied to clinical surgical research must be recognized. The aim of randomization is to ensure initial comparability between groups of eligible patients for whom treatments are compared, thus eliminating their individual influence on outcome. Randomized controlled trials in the surgical literature are sparse; patient preferences might be a major obstacle to their performance. External validity of results of clinical trials depends on the representativity of patients who participate in trials: Compliance to participate through informed consent may act as a selection bias. In surgical randomized trials where it is not often possible for patients to remain blinded to the treatment to which they have been allocated, patient preferences can influence the effectiveness of treatments. In this setting, we need to look at alternatives and the potential advantages of adopting more flexible and clinically relevant approaches to the design of surgical trials. We have to accept the weight of the patient’s individual decision in everyday practice. Hence, to negate the importance of these individual choices when evaluating surgical outcomes is unrealistic. An original design reported herein might become a new paradigm for surgical evaluation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Millat, B, Fingerhut, A, Flamant, Y, et al. 1999Survey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in France: French Associations for Research in Surgery (AURC and ACAPEM)Eur. J. Surg.1658794CrossRefPubMed Millat, B, Fingerhut, A, Flamant, Y,  et al. 1999Survey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in France: French Associations for Research in Surgery (AURC and ACAPEM)Eur. J. Surg.1658794CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference McLeod, RS, Wright, JG, Solomon, MJ, et al. 1996Randomized controlled strials in surgery: issues sand problemsSurgery119483486PubMed McLeod, RS, Wright, JG, Solomon, MJ,  et al. 1996Randomized controlled strials in surgery: issues sand problemsSurgery119483486PubMed
3.
go back to reference Solomon, MJ, McLeod, RS. 1995Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations?Surgery118459467PubMed Solomon, MJ, McLeod, RS. 1995Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations?Surgery118459467PubMed
4.
go back to reference Williams, BF, French, JK, White, HD, et al. 2003Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardlal infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational studyLancet361918922CrossRefPubMed Williams, BF, French, JK, White, HD,  et al. 2003Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardlal infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational studyLancet361918922CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Domenighetti, G, Casabianca, A. 1995Health care economics, uncertainty and physician-induced demandSchweiz. Med. Wochenschr.12519691979PubMed Domenighetti, G, Casabianca, A. 1995Health care economics, uncertainty and physician-induced demandSchweiz. Med. Wochenschr.12519691979PubMed
6.
go back to reference Zelen, M. 1979A new design for randomized clinical trialsN. Engl. J. Med.30012421245PubMed Zelen, M. 1979A new design for randomized clinical trialsN. Engl. J. Med.30012421245PubMed
7.
go back to reference Brewin, CR, Bradley, C. 1989Patients’ preferences and randomized clinical trialsB.M.J.289313315 Brewin, CR, Bradley, C. 1989Patients’ preferences and randomized clinical trialsB.M.J.289313315
8.
go back to reference Korn, EL, Baumrind, S. 1991Randomised clinical trials with clinician-prefered treatmentLancet337149152CrossRefPubMed Korn, EL, Baumrind, S. 1991Randomised clinical trials with clinician-prefered treatmentLancet337149152CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Rücker, G. 1989A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effectsStat. Med.8477485PubMed Rücker, G. 1989A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effectsStat. Med.8477485PubMed
10.
go back to reference Olschewski, M, Scheurlen, H. 1985Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trialMethods Inform Med24131134 Olschewski, M, Scheurlen, H. 1985Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trialMethods Inform Med24131134
11.
go back to reference Olschewski, M, Schumacher, M, Davis, KB. 1992Analysis of randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study designControlled Clin. Trials13226239CrossRefPubMed Olschewski, M, Schumacher, M, Davis, KB. 1992Analysis of randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study designControlled Clin. Trials13226239CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research
Authors
Bertrand Millat, M.D.
Frédéric Borie, M.D.
Abe Fingerhut, M.D., FACS
Publication date
01-05-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 5/2005
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7920-z

Other articles of this Issue 5/2005

World Journal of Surgery 5/2005 Go to the issue