PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10435967

Understanding controlled trials. Randomisation methods: concealment.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D J Torgerson, C Roberts. 1999-08-07. Understanding controlled trials. Randomisation methods: concealment.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7206.375

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Counselling for depression in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is wide clinician and patient support for counselling in primary care, particularly in the UK. This review examines the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling for psychological and psychosocial problems in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of counselling in primary care by reviewing cost and outcome data for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy included electronic searching of databases (including the CCDAN Register of RCTs and CCTs) along with handsearching of a specialist journal. Published and unpublished sources (clinical trials, books, dissertations, agency reports etc.) were searched, and their reference lists scanned. Contact was made with subject experts and CCDAN members. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled patient preference trials comparing counselling in primary care with usual general practitioner care for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. Trials completed before the end of April 1998 were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were independently assessed by at least two reviewers for appropriateness of inclusion and methdological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials, involving 678 participants, of whom 487 were followed up, were included. Data for psychological symptom levels (four trials) were pooled statistically. Patients receiving counselling had significantly better psychological symptom levels post intervention than patients receiving usual general practitioner care (standardised mean difference -0.30, 95% CI, (-0.49 to - 0.11). The effect remained statistically significant when the results from studies with less rigorous methodology were excluded in a sensitivity analysis. Patients who received counselling tended to be more satisfied with their treatment (three trials). Health service utilisation data were reported in all trials reviewed, but only one trial undertook a cost analysis. No clear cost advantage was associated with either counselling or usual general practice care. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received counselling were more likely to have improved psychological symptom levels than those who did not receive counselling. Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. There is limited information about the cost effectiveness of counselling, with one study reporting no clear cost advantage with either counselling or general practice care. The four trials included in this review were all pragmatic trials of counselling in primary care in the UK, which reflect the reality of clinical provision in this context. There were methdological weaknesses identified in the studies, which should be taken into account when considering the results. The evidence base will be extended by trials of counselling which are nearing completion.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Position of the American Dietetic Association: food fortification and dietary supplements.

Wise food choices provide the necessary foundation for optimal nutrition. Science has not fully identified the specific chemical components that account for the benefits of healthy eating patterns. Selection of a variety of foods, using tools such as the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, is the best way to provide a desirable balance, without excessive intakes of macronutrients, micronutrients and other beneficial components of foods. Nevertheless, for certain nutrients and some individuals, fortification, supplementation, or both may also be desirable. Nutrient intakes from all these sources should be considered in dietary assessments, planning and recommendations. The recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Food and Nutrition Board provide a sound scientific basis for vitamin and mineral intakes. Intakes exceeding those recommendations have no demonstrated benefit for the normal, healthy population. Dietetics professionals should base recommendations for use of fortified foods or supplements on individualized assessment and sound scientific evidence of efficacy and safety. It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that the best nutritional strategy for promoting optimal health and reducing the risk of chronic disease is to wisely choose a wide variety of foods. Additional vitamins and minerals from fortified foods and/or supplements can help some people meet their nutritional needs as specified by science-based nutrition standards such as the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI).

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗