Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1981;64:669-673

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by May, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Passamani, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by May, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Passamani, E.

Circulation, Vol 64, 669-673, Copyright © 1981 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis

GS May, DL DeMets, LM Friedman, C Furberg and E Passamani

The realization that bias in patient selection may influence the results of clinical studies has helped to establish the randomized controlled clinical trial in medical research. However, bias can be equally important at other stages of a trial, especially at the time of analysis. Withdrawing patients from consideration in the analysis because of ineligibility on account of study entry criteria, lack of compliance to the protocol, or data of poor quality may be a source of systematic error. Examples to illustrate the possible consequences are taken from trials in the cardiovascular field. We recommended that reported study results should include outcome data from all subjects randomized in the group to which they were originally assigned.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Evid Based Complement Alternat MedHome page
A. M. Whelan, T. M. Jurgens, and L. Lord
Evaluating the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials that Examine the Efficacy of Natural Health Products: A Systematic Review of Critical Appraisal Instruments
Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., January 18, 2008; (2008) nem186v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Dent. Res.Home page
R. Montenegro, I. Needleman, D. Moles, and M. Tonetti
Quality of RCTs in Periodontology-- A Systematic Review
J. Dent. Res., December 1, 2002; 81(12): 866 - 870.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. Juni, D. G Altman, and M. Egger
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
BMJ, July 7, 2001; 323(7303): 42 - 46.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
P. J. Devereaux, B. J. Manns, W. A. Ghali, H. Quan, C. Lacchetti, V. M. Montori, M. Bhandari, and G. H. Guyatt
Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials
JAMA, April 18, 2001; 285(15): 2000 - 2003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
P. Juni, A. Witschi, R. Bloch, and M. Egger
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
JAMA, September 15, 1999; 282(11): 1054 - 1060.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]