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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
B Millat A Fingerhut Y Flamant et al. (1999) ArticleTitleSurvey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in France: French Associations for Research in Surgery (AURC and ACAPEM) Eur. J. Surg. 165 87–94 Occurrence Handle10.1080/110241599750007243 Occurrence Handle10192564
RS McLeod JG Wright MJ Solomon et al. (1996) ArticleTitleRandomized controlled strials in surgery: issues sand problems Surgery 119 483–486 Occurrence Handle8619200
MJ Solomon RS. McLeod (1995) ArticleTitleShould we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 118 459–467 Occurrence Handle7652679
BF Williams JK French HD White et al. (2003) ArticleTitleInformed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardlal infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational study Lancet 361 918–922 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12773-0 Occurrence Handle12648970
G Domenighetti A. Casabianca (1995) ArticleTitleHealth care economics, uncertainty and physician-induced demand Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 125 1969–1979 Occurrence Handle7481655
M. Zelen (1979) ArticleTitleA new design for randomized clinical trials N. Engl. J. Med. 300 1242–1245 Occurrence Handle431682
CR Brewin C. Bradley (1989) ArticleTitlePatients’ preferences and randomized clinical trials B.M.J. 289 313–315
EL Korn S. Baumrind (1991) ArticleTitleRandomised clinical trials with clinician-prefered treatment Lancet 337 149–152 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0140-6736(91)90809-4 Occurrence Handle1670796
G. Rücker (1989) ArticleTitleA two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects Stat. Med. 8 477–485 Occurrence Handle2727471
M Olschewski H. Scheurlen (1985) ArticleTitleComprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial Methods Inform Med 24 131–134
M Olschewski M Schumacher KB. Davis (1992) ArticleTitleAnalysis of randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study design Controlled Clin. Trials 13 226–239 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0197-2456(92)90005-K Occurrence Handle1320559
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millat, B., Borie, F. & Fingerhut, A. Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research. World J. Surg. 29, 596–600 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7920-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7920-z