Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Current Anesthesiology Reports 3/2016

01.09.2016 | Research Methods and Statistical Analyses (Y Le Manach, Section Editor)

An Overview of Challenges and Approaches to Minimize Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Perioperative Medicine

verfasst von: Emmanuelle Duceppe, Emilie Belley-Coté

Erschienen in: Current Anesthesiology Reports | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are recognized as the most robust design to study the relationship between exposure and outcomes. The conventional RCT design is commonly used in pharmacological trials. Some surgical interventions are not be well suited to a conventional RCT design and may be associated with methodological challenges. Approaches have been proposed in non-pharmacological trials to overcome some of these challenges and minimize the risk of bias.

Recent Findings

Imbalance in prognostic factors between intervention groups, lack of allocation concealment, unblinding, non-intention-to-treat analysis, and losses to follow-ups can all threaten the validity of RCT results to various degrees. Procedure-based trials raise also specific challenges since physician expertise and training can affect the intervention, exposing to potential differential-expertise bias. Lack of statistical power can also affect the confidence in a trial’s result. Small sample sizes also usually mean small number of events for comparison between interventions, resulting in less statistically robust findings.

Summary

Minimizing risk of bias and achieving adequate statistical power are crucial to producing high quality and meaningful results. Non-pharmacological trials pose certain methodological challenges, and several approaches have been proposed to address the risk of bias. Large sample sizes are also usually required to achieve sufficient statistical power to provide answers to meaningful clinical questions. However, small perioperative trials remain frequent and result interpretation based solely on P values might not always appropriately inform on the confidence in a trial’s results. The Fragility Index can be used to further inform on the confidence of statistically significant result.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Devereaux PJ, Yusuf S. The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence-based decision making. J Intern Med. 2003;254(2):105–13.PubMedCrossRef Devereaux PJ, Yusuf S. The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence-based decision making. J Intern Med. 2003;254(2):105–13.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Group GW. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ Br Med J. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRef Group GW. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ Br Med J. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):409–16.PubMedCrossRef Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, et al. Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):409–16.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):515–9.PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):515–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lachin JM. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9(4):312–26.PubMedCrossRef Lachin JM. Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9(4):312–26.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):614–8.PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359(9306):614–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272(2):125–8.PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272(2):125–8.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman DG, Dore CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet. 1990;335(8682):149–53.PubMedCrossRef Altman DG, Dore CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet. 1990;335(8682):149–53.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Meinert CL, Tonascia S. Clinical trials: design, conduct, and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.CrossRef Meinert CL, Tonascia S. Clinical trials: design, conduct, and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1863–71.PubMedCrossRef Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1863–71.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Montenij L, de Waal E, Frank M, van Beest P, de Wit A, Kruitwagen C, et al. Influence of early goal-directed therapy using arterial waveform analysis on major complications after high-risk abdominal surgery: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial. Trials. 2014;15:360.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Montenij L, de Waal E, Frank M, van Beest P, de Wit A, Kruitwagen C, et al. Influence of early goal-directed therapy using arterial waveform analysis on major complications after high-risk abdominal surgery: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial. Trials. 2014;15:360.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Buse GL, et al. Accelerated care versus standard care among patients with hip fracture: the HIP ATTACK pilot trial. Cmaj. 2014;186(1):52–60.CrossRef Buse GL, et al. Accelerated care versus standard care among patients with hip fracture: the HIP ATTACK pilot trial. Cmaj. 2014;186(1):52–60.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(10):1070–5.PubMedCrossRef Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(10):1070–5.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat •• Evaniew N, Carrasco-Labra A, Devereaux PJ, Tikkinen KA, Fei Y, Bhandari M, et al. How to use a randomized clinical trial addressing a surgical procedure: users’ guide to the medical literature. JAMA Surg. 2016. - This publication of the Users Guide to the Medical Literature RCTs provides comprehensible review of use and misuse of RCTs in the surgical setting. •• Evaniew N, Carrasco-Labra A, Devereaux PJ, Tikkinen KA, Fei Y, Bhandari M, et al. How to use a randomized clinical trial addressing a surgical procedure: users’ guide to the medical literature. JAMA Surg. 2016. - This publication of the Users Guide to the Medical Literature RCTs provides comprehensible review of use and misuse of RCTs in the surgical setting.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenfield ML, Mhyre JM, Mashour GA, Blum JM, Yen EC, Rosenberg AL. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(6):1916–21.PubMedCrossRef Greenfield ML, Mhyre JM, Mashour GA, Blum JM, Yen EC, Rosenberg AL. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(6):1916–21.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, Kaur MN, Banfield L, Meade MO, et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: Part I. Risk of bias and outcomes: common pitfalls plastic surgeons can overcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(2):696–706.PubMedCrossRef Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, Kaur MN, Banfield L, Meade MO, et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: Part I. Risk of bias and outcomes: common pitfalls plastic surgeons can overcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(2):696–706.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1232–6.PubMedCrossRef Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1232–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA, Kuykendall DH, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(2):81–8.PubMedCrossRef Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA, Kuykendall DH, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(2):81–8.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD, Kenton K, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD, Kenton K, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Koutsourelakis I, Georgoulopoulos G, Perraki E, Vagiakis E, Roussos C, Zakynthinos SG. Randomised trial of nasal surgery for fixed nasal obstruction in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J. 2008;31(1):110–7.PubMedCrossRef Koutsourelakis I, Georgoulopoulos G, Perraki E, Vagiakis E, Roussos C, Zakynthinos SG. Randomised trial of nasal surgery for fixed nasal obstruction in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J. 2008;31(1):110–7.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Horng S, Miller FG. Ethical framework for the use of sham procedures in clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3 Suppl):S126–30.PubMedCrossRef Horng S, Miller FG. Ethical framework for the use of sham procedures in clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3 Suppl):S126–30.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolf BR, Buckwalter JA. Randomized surgical trials and “sham” surgery: relevance to modern orthopaedics and minimally invasive surgery. Iowa Orthop J. 2006;26:107–11.PubMedCentralPubMed Wolf BR, Buckwalter JA. Randomized surgical trials and “sham” surgery: relevance to modern orthopaedics and minimally invasive surgery. Iowa Orthop J. 2006;26:107–11.PubMedCentralPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Dowrick AS, Bhandari M. Ethical issues in the design of randomized trials: to sham or not to sham. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):7–10.PubMedCrossRef Dowrick AS, Bhandari M. Ethical issues in the design of randomized trials: to sham or not to sham. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):7–10.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Sackett DL. Clinician-trialist rounds: 5. Cointervention bias–how to diagnose it in their trial and prevent it in yours. Clin Trials. 2011;8(4):440–2.PubMedCrossRef Sackett DL. Clinician-trialist rounds: 5. Cointervention bias–how to diagnose it in their trial and prevent it in yours. Clin Trials. 2011;8(4):440–2.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344:e1119.PubMedCrossRef Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344:e1119.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Marti RK, Farrokhyar F, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):550–8.PubMed Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Marti RK, Farrokhyar F, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):550–8.PubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1996;347(9007):989–94.PubMedCrossRef Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1996;347(9007):989–94.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, Leslie K, Alonso-Coello P, Kurz A, et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494–503.PubMedCrossRef Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, Leslie K, Alonso-Coello P, Kurz A, et al. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494–503.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Vannabouathong C, Saccone M, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M. Adjudicating outcomes: fundamentals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):70–4.PubMedCrossRef Vannabouathong C, Saccone M, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M. Adjudicating outcomes: fundamentals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Suppl 1):70–4.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ: Br Med J. 2001;322(7282):355–7.CrossRef Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? BMJ: Br Med J. 2001;322(7282):355–7.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):88.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):88.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat • Cook JA, Elders A, Boachie C, Bassinga T, Fraser C, Altman DG, et al. A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design. Trials. 2015;16:241. - A systematic review that informs on the current use of expertise-based design in RCTs. Expertise-based design has gained popularity in the last decade as a novel approach to conduct RCT, especially in non-pharmacological and surgical trials. • Cook JA, Elders A, Boachie C, Bassinga T, Fraser C, Altman DG, et al. A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design. Trials. 2015;16:241. - A systematic review that informs on the current use of expertise-based design in RCTs. Expertise-based design has gained popularity in the last decade as a novel approach to conduct RCT, especially in non-pharmacological and surgical trials.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Walter SD, Ismaila AS, Devereaux PJ. Statistical issues in the design and analysis of expertise-based randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2008;27(30):6583–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Walter SD, Ismaila AS, Devereaux PJ. Statistical issues in the design and analysis of expertise-based randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 2008;27(30):6583–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21(5):837–41.PubMedCrossRef Newell DJ. Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21(5):837–41.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, et al. Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2015;350:h2445PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, et al. Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2015;350:h2445PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–5.PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–5.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, Sun X, Johnston BC, Busse JW, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e2809.PubMedCrossRef Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, Sun X, Johnston BC, Busse JW, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e2809.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM. Meta-analysis of small randomized controlled trials in surgery may be unreliable. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):466–9.PubMedCrossRef Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM. Meta-analysis of small randomized controlled trials in surgery may be unreliable. Br J Surg. 2010;97(4):466–9.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdulatif M, Mukhtar A, Obayah G. Pitfalls in reporting sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials published in leading anaesthesia journals: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(5):699–707.PubMedCrossRef Abdulatif M, Mukhtar A, Obayah G. Pitfalls in reporting sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials published in leading anaesthesia journals: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(5):699–707.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med. 1984;3(4):409–22.PubMedCrossRef Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med. 1984;3(4):409–22.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat •• Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):622–8. - This publication discusses the issue of fragility in trials and introduced the Fragility Index. The Fragility Index is an novel metric that is proposed to complement p-value in assessing statistically significant results reported in trials. PubMedCrossRef •• Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, Mrkobrada M, Levine O, Ribic C, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):622–8. - This publication discusses the issue of fragility in trials and introduced the Fragility Index. The Fragility Index is an novel metric that is proposed to complement p-value in assessing statistically significant results reported in trials. PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Ridgeon EE, Young PJ, Bellomo R, Mucchetti M, Lembo R, Landoni G. The fragility index in multicenter randomized controlled critical care trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):1278–84.PubMedCrossRef Ridgeon EE, Young PJ, Bellomo R, Mucchetti M, Lembo R, Landoni G. The fragility index in multicenter randomized controlled critical care trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):1278–84.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Evaniew N, Files C, Smith C, Bhandari M, Ghert M, Walsh M, et al. The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey. Spine J. 2015;15(10):2188–97.PubMedCrossRef Evaniew N, Files C, Smith C, Bhandari M, Ghert M, Walsh M, et al. The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey. Spine J. 2015;15(10):2188–97.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
An Overview of Challenges and Approaches to Minimize Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Perioperative Medicine
verfasst von
Emmanuelle Duceppe
Emilie Belley-Coté
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Anesthesiology Reports / Ausgabe 3/2016
Elektronische ISSN: 2167-6275
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-016-0172-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Current Anesthesiology Reports 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Neuroanesthesia (M Smith, Section Editor)

Perioperative Management of Traumatic Brain Injury

Neuroanesthesia (M Smith, Section Editor)

Postoperative Care of Neurosurgical Patients

Research Methods and Statistical Analyses (Y Le Manach, Section Editor)

Health-Economic Researches in Perioperative Medicine

Neuroanesthesia (M Smith, Section Editor)

Anesthesia for Deep Brain Stimulation

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.