Misconceptions about randomisation harm validity of randomised controlled trials.
Rationale: The coherence theory of truth, the epistemology of evidence‐based medicine, mathematical statistics, and axiomatic mathematics. Aims and Objectives: To explore mathematical misconceptions inhering in randomised controlled trial designs, suggest improvements, encourage meta‐methodological...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Vol. 31; no. 5; pp. 1 - 4 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Aug2025
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=187574742&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 187574742 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 13561294 EV1 jtl: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice issn: 13561294 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Aug2025 vid: 31 iid: 5 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 187574742 180421565 187574742 187574742 10.1111/jep.14224 187574742 ppf: 1 ppct: 3 formats: tig: atl: Misconceptions about randomisation harm validity of randomised controlled trials. aug: au: Mastnak, Wolfgang affil: School of Arts and Communication 北京师范大学艺术与传媒学院, Beijing Normal University, 19 Xinwai Ave, Beitaipingzhuang, Beijing Haidian District, , China sug: subj: Randomized Controlled Trials Random Assignment Study Design Mathematics Credibility (Research) Sampling Bias Statistical Significance Random Sample Sampling Error Research Methodology Internal Validity Research, Interdisciplinary Medical Practice, Evidence-Based Research Personnel Professional Knowledge Simulations ab: Rationale: The coherence theory of truth, the epistemology of evidence‐based medicine, mathematical statistics, and axiomatic mathematics. Aims and Objectives: To explore mathematical misconceptions inhering in randomised controlled trial designs, suggest improvements, encourage meta‐methodological discussions and call for further interdisciplinary studies. Method: Mathematical‐statistical analyses and science‐philosophical considerations. Results: Randomisation does not (necessarily) generate equal samples, ergo, outcomes of usual RCTs are not as reliable as they claim. Moreover, ignoring initial sample discrepancies may cause inaccuracies similar to type I and type II errors. Insufficient awareness of these flaws harms final RCT statements about significance and evidence levels, hence their loss of trustworthiness. Statistical parameters such as the standard error of the mean may help to estimate the expected distinction between random samples. Conclusion: Researchers in EBM should be aware of systemic misconceptions in RCT standards. Pre‐measurement can reduce shortcomings, e.g. through calculation how sample differences impact on usual RCT processing, or randomisation is given up in favour of mathematical minimisation of sample differences, i.e. optimising statistical sample equality. Moreover, the promising future of dynamic simulation models is highlighted. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|