Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Treatment and control groups

In experimental research designs, particularly in clinical trials and scientific studies, treatment groups and control groups form the cornerstone for evaluating interventions. The treatment group, often referred to as the experimental group, consists of participants who receive the intervention, manipulation, or therapy being tested to assess its efficacy, safety, or effects. In contrast, the control group comprises individuals who do not receive this intervention but are otherwise similar to the treatment group in relevant characteristics, serving as a baseline for comparison to determine whether observed outcomes result from the treatment rather than extraneous factors such as natural progression of a condition or participant expectations.^[1]^[2] The primary importance of these groups lies in enhancing the internal validity of studies, allowing researchers to isolate the causal impact of the intervention by minimizing biases and confounding variables. For instance, control groups help account for placebo effects, which can influence up to 30% of responses in participants, and ensure that differences in outcomes between groups are attributable to the treatment itself. Random assignment of participants to treatment and control groups, a hallmark of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), further strengthens this validity by balancing known and unknown factors across groups, thereby reducing selection bias and improving the reliability of evidence for clinical decision-making.^[3]^[1] Control groups can vary in type to suit ethical, practical, and scientific needs, including placebo controls (where participants receive an inactive substance), active-treatment controls (comparing the new intervention to an established standard therapy), no-treatment controls (monitoring natural outcomes without intervention), and historical or external controls (using data from prior studies). The choice of control type must maintain equipoise—genuine uncertainty about the relative benefits of the interventions—to uphold ethical standards, while also ensuring comparability between groups to avoid misclassification or chronological biases that could undermine study conclusions. These elements collectively enable robust evidence generation across fields like medicine, psychology, and social sciences, informing evidence-based practices and policy.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Fundamentals

Definition

In experimental design, the treatment group refers to the cohort of subjects or units that receive the experimental intervention or manipulation of the independent variable, allowing researchers to observe the effects of the introduced factor.^[4] Conversely, the control group consists of a similar cohort that does not receive the intervention, providing a baseline for comparison to isolate the impact of the treatment from other variables.^[5] This setup ensures that differences in outcomes between the groups can be attributed to the experimental factor rather than extraneous influences.^[2] While control groups can be subdivided into various forms depending on the study context, they fundamentally serve as the reference standard against which the treatment group's responses are measured, enabling the detection of causal relationships.^[6] For instance, in a simple binary experimental setup, such as a clinical drug trial, the treatment group might receive the new medication, while the control group receives no drug or an inert substitute, allowing researchers to compare health outcomes directly.^[7] The concepts of treatment and control groups originated in early 20th-century scientific methodology, particularly through the work of British statistician Ronald A. Fisher, whose 1925 publication Statistical Methods for Research Workers and 1935 book The Design of Experiments formalized the use of such groups in agricultural trials to enable rigorous statistical comparisons.^[8] Fisher's innovations, including randomization to assign subjects to groups, established these elements as foundational to modern experimental science.

Purpose

Treatment and control groups serve the primary purpose of establishing causality in scientific experiments by enabling direct comparisons of outcomes between the intervention-exposed group and a baseline group, which helps isolate the effect of the independent variable while controlling for confounding factors that could otherwise distort results.^[9] This comparative framework is fundamental to experimental design, as articulated by Ronald A. Fisher in his seminal work on the principles of randomization and replication, where control groups provide a reference against which treatment effects can be reliably measured.^[10] In hypothesis testing, the treatment group is subjected to the experimental intervention to assess its hypothesized impact on the dependent variable, whereas the control group experiences no such intervention or a standardized alternative, thereby accounting for extraneous influences like temporal changes or natural maturation processes that might independently affect outcomes over time.^[11] By maintaining equivalence between groups prior to the intervention—typically through randomization—the control group captures these external factors, allowing researchers to attribute any observed differences post-intervention to the treatment itself rather than to biases or uncontrolled variables.^[12] The use of control groups is crucial for enhancing internal validity, as it mitigates the risk of falsely attributing outcome changes to the intervention when they may stem from non-treatment causes, such as placebo responses driven by participant expectations or statistical regression to the mean in variable measurements.^[11]^[13] Without a control group, threats like maturation—where subjects naturally improve due to biological or psychological development—or history effects from external events could confound interpretations, undermining the experiment's ability to draw causal inferences.^[14] This safeguards against erroneous conclusions, ensuring that the experiment's findings reflect true intervention effects. Statistically, treatment and control groups form the foundation for inferential methods like difference-in-differences analysis, which estimates causal impacts by comparing pre- and post-intervention changes across groups, or independent samples t-tests that evaluate mean differences.^[15] The t-statistic for such a test, assuming equal variances, is calculated as:

t = \frac{\bar{x}_t - \bar{x}_c}{\sqrt{\frac{s_p^2}{n_t} + \frac{s_p^2}{n_c}}}

where \bar{x}_t and \bar{x}_c are the sample means of the treatment and control groups, s_p^2 is the pooled variance estimate, and n_t and n_c are the respective sample sizes; this formula quantifies whether observed differences are statistically significant beyond chance variation.^[16]

Types of Control Groups

Placebo Controls

In placebo-controlled designs, the control group receives a sham intervention designed to replicate the sensory and procedural aspects of the active treatment without containing its therapeutic components. For example, this might involve administering a sugar pill that matches the appearance, taste, size, and packaging of an oral medication, or a saline injection indistinguishable from the real drug in delivery method. This setup ensures that participants, researchers, and sometimes both (in double-blind studies) remain unaware of group assignments, thereby controlling for procedural biases.^[17]^[18] The rationale for placebo controls lies in their ability to distinguish the true pharmacological effects of a treatment from nonspecific influences, such as patient expectations, conditioning, or the ritual of receiving care. These psychological factors can significantly influence subjective outcomes, including pain perception, nausea, or depressive symptoms, where placebo responses may account for 30-40% of observed improvements in some trials.^[19]^[20] By comparing treatment results against placebo responses, researchers can isolate the specific efficacy of the intervention, enhancing the reliability of conclusions about its benefits. Placebo-controlled trials were introduced in the 1940s to enable ethical blinding and rigorous efficacy evaluation amid growing recognition of expectation effects, as seen in the Medical Research Council's 1944 multicenter trial of patulin (an antifungal derived from Penicillium) for the common cold, which was the first properly randomized, placebo-controlled study.^[21]^[22] These designs offer high internal validity by reducing confounding variables and providing a clear benchmark for treatment superiority, making them essential for establishing causal links in efficacy testing. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration frequently mandates placebo controls for drug approvals, particularly in conditions without established therapies, to confirm that benefits exceed placebo responses and to support labeling claims.^[23]^[24]^[25] To assess the magnitude of the true treatment effect relative to placebo, effect size metrics like Cohen's d are employed, providing a standardized measure independent of sample size. The formula is:

d = \frac{M_t - M_p}{SD_{\text{pooled}}}

where M_t represents the mean outcome in the treatment group, M_p the mean in the placebo group, and SD_{\text{pooled}} the pooled standard deviation across groups, calculated as \sqrt{\frac{(n_t-1)SD_t^2 + (n_p-1)SD_p^2}{n_t + n_p - 2}}. This allows comparison of efficacy across studies, with values around 0.2 indicating small effects, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large.^[26]^[27]

Active and No-Treatment Controls

Active control groups in clinical trials involve comparing an experimental treatment to an established, effective therapy rather than an inert substance, allowing researchers to assess whether the new intervention is superior, equivalent, or non-inferior to the standard care.^[23] This design is particularly useful in superiority trials, where the goal is to demonstrate better outcomes, or in equivalence and non-inferiority trials, where the aim is to show that the new treatment performs comparably without being worse by a clinically meaningful margin.^[28] For instance, in non-inferiority testing, the statistical hypothesis tests whether the difference in means between the test treatment (\mu_t) and active control (\mu_a) exceeds a predefined non-inferiority margin -\Delta, formulated as H_0: \mu_t - \mu_a \leq -\Delta versus H_a: \mu_t - \mu_a > -\Delta, where \Delta > 0 represents the acceptable threshold for non-inferiority.^[29] No-treatment control groups, by contrast, involve withholding any intervention from the control participants, providing a baseline to observe the natural progression of the condition without therapeutic influence.^[30] This approach is common in fields like psychotherapy, where a waitlist control—participants scheduled to receive treatment after the study period—serves as the no-treatment arm to evaluate the intervention's effects against spontaneous remission or external factors.^[31] Such designs are valuable for measuring the true impact of an intervention when placebo effects are minimal or when objective outcomes, like disease progression markers, are available and not confounded by subjective biases.^[32] Active controls are preferentially used when ethical considerations prohibit placebo or no-treatment arms, such as in trials for life-threatening conditions with proven standards of care, to avoid denying participants effective therapy.^[33] For example, in 1980s AIDS clinical trials, active controls were employed in subsequent studies after initial placebo controversies, as withholding standard treatments like zidovudine became unjustifiable amid high mortality risks.^[34] No-treatment controls, however, are suitable for interventions with low risk of harm and no established effective alternatives, such as novel behavioral therapies, where observing the untreated course informs efficacy without compromising participant welfare.^[35] Despite their advantages, active controls can obscure differences between treatments if the standard and experimental interventions are too similar, potentially leading to inconclusive results on superiority and requiring larger sample sizes for non-inferiority demonstrations.^[36] No-treatment controls, meanwhile, often face higher dropout rates due to participant disappointment or seeking alternative care elsewhere, which can introduce bias and reduce statistical power.^[37]

Historical and External Controls

Historical controls use data from previous studies or patient records as the control group, comparing current treatment outcomes to past untreated or differently treated cohorts. External controls draw from independent datasets, such as registries or real-world evidence, rather than concurrent participants. These are employed when concurrent controls are impractical or unethical, such as in rare diseases, oncology trials with high placebo toxicity risks, or single-arm studies where randomization is infeasible.^[23]^[38] Advantages include cost savings and faster recruitment, avoiding the need to expose participants to potentially inferior treatments. However, they risk biases from temporal changes (e.g., evolving standards of care, population differences) or selection effects, reducing internal validity compared to randomized concurrent controls. Regulatory bodies like the FDA accept them under strict conditions, such as well-matched cohorts and sensitivity analyses, particularly for orphan drugs or accelerated approvals as of 2023.^[39]^[3]

Design Principles

Randomization

Randomization is the process of assigning participants to treatment or control groups in a study such that each individual has an equal probability of being placed in any group, thereby promoting baseline comparability between groups. This technique ensures that differences in outcomes can be attributed to the intervention rather than pre-existing imbalances. By distributing known and unknown prognostic factors evenly across groups, randomization minimizes selection bias, where researchers might inadvertently assign participants based on perceived suitability, and confounding, where external variables distort the apparent effect of the treatment. It also enables probability-based statistical inference, allowing researchers to quantify uncertainty in estimates through methods like p-values and confidence intervals.^[40]^[41]^[42] Common methods for randomization include simple random assignment, block randomization, and stratified randomization. Simple randomization, akin to flipping a coin for each participant, provides the purest form of chance-based allocation but may result in unequal group sizes by chance, especially in smaller samples. Block randomization addresses this by dividing the assignment sequence into blocks of fixed size (e.g., pairs or groups of four), ensuring equal numbers in each group within every block while maintaining overall randomness. Stratified randomization further enhances balance by separately randomizing within subgroups defined by key covariates, such as age, sex, or disease severity, to prevent imbalances in these factors across treatment arms. These approaches are selected based on study size and the need for prognostic balance.^[43]^[40] The foundational advocacy for randomization in experimental design came from statistician R.A. Fisher in his 1926 paper on field experiments at Rothamsted Experimental Station, where he applied it to agricultural trials comparing crop yields under different manure treatments to eliminate systematic errors from soil variability. Fisher's work emphasized randomization as essential for valid inference in controlled experiments, influencing its adoption in both agricultural and medical research. In modern implementation, randomization sequences are typically generated using computer-based random number generators to produce unpredictable allocations, which are then concealed during assignment via methods like sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes or centralized electronic systems to prevent prediction or tampering by investigators.^[44]^[45]^[46] Statistically, randomization supports intention-to-treat analysis, which includes all randomized participants in their assigned groups regardless of compliance or dropout, thereby preserving the initial balance and providing an unbiased estimate of treatment effects in real-world settings. Under successful randomization, which achieves approximate balance, the variance of the estimated treatment effect (difference in group means) is reduced to approximately that of a balanced design, given by the formula:

\operatorname{Var}(\hat{\tau}) \approx \sigma^2 \left( \frac{1}{n_t} + \frac{1}{n_c} \right)

where \sigma^2 is the common variance, n_t is the treatment group size, and n_c is the control group size; this formulation underscores how larger, balanced samples enhance precision.^[47]^[42]

Blinding

Blinding, also known as masking, is a methodological strategy in clinical trials and experiments designed to prevent knowledge of treatment or control group assignments from influencing the behavior of participants, researchers, or analysts, thereby minimizing bias in outcome assessment.^[48] This approach is essential in studies involving treatment and control groups to ensure the validity of results by concealing allocation details during the trial period.^[49] The primary types of blinding include single-blind, double-blind, and triple-blind designs, each specifying the number of parties kept unaware of the group assignments. In a single-blind trial, only the participants are blinded to their treatment allocation, while researchers remain informed; this helps control for participant expectations but leaves room for investigator bias.^[48] Double-blinding extends this to both participants and researchers or care providers, reducing the risk of differential treatment or subjective assessments influenced by knowledge of the intervention.^[50] Triple-blinding further includes data analysts or outcome assessors, providing an additional layer of objectivity in interpreting results, particularly in complex trials where statistical analysis could be swayed by prior knowledge.^[48] Implementation of blinding relies on practical mechanisms such as identical packaging for treatments and placebos, coded labels that obscure group identities, and secure code-breaking procedures accessible only in emergencies.^[51] For instance, drug kits or supplies are often prepared by an independent party to maintain concealment, with unblinding protocols—such as sealed envelopes or electronic systems—allowing emergency access while logging any breaks to preserve trial integrity.^[52] These methods ensure that neither participants nor blinded personnel can distinguish between treatment and control interventions based on appearance or administration. Blinding is crucial for mitigating performance bias, where knowledge of assignment might lead to altered participant behavior or co-interventions, and detection bias, where assessors' expectations influence outcome measurement.^[53] In pain studies, for example, participants' expectations shaped by awareness of receiving a treatment versus placebo can significantly alter self-reported pain levels, underscoring how blinding preserves unbiased reporting.^[54] Historically, the 1960s controversies surrounding LSD in psychiatric trials, amid rising recreational use and ethical concerns, prompted a regulatory shift toward double-blinding to demonstrate efficacy objectively, as mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1962 amendments requiring controlled, blinded studies for drug approval.^[55] Despite its benefits, blinding presents challenges, particularly in feasibility for certain interventions like surgical trials, where full concealment is difficult due to procedural differences; sham surgery serves as a workaround by simulating the operation without therapeutic elements to maintain participant and assessor blinding.^[56] Unplanned unblinding, whether accidental or emergency-related, can compromise trial validity by introducing bias that inflates the risk of Type I errors—false positives in detecting treatment effects—necessitating robust safeguards and post-hoc adjustments in analysis.^[57]

Applications

Clinical Trials

In clinical trials, particularly in Phases II and III, treatment and control groups form the cornerstone of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new interventions. Phase II trials typically involve a few hundred participants and employ randomized designs with control groups—often placebo or standard care—to assess preliminary efficacy while monitoring adverse effects, determining if the treatment warrants progression to larger studies. Phase III trials expand to thousands of participants, using RCTs to compare the investigational treatment against controls, confirming benefits in diverse populations and establishing risk-benefit profiles for regulatory approval. This structured use of controls minimizes bias and provides robust evidence of therapeutic value.^[58]^[59] Regulatory frameworks, such as the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, explicitly require appropriate control groups in clinical trials to ensure scientific validity and ethical conduct. ICH E10 outlines the choice of controls, emphasizing superiority trials where the test treatment is compared to placebo or active controls to demonstrate clear benefits, particularly in fields like oncology where placebo use is common when no effective therapy exists. These standards mandate that controls provide a valid baseline for assessing assay sensitivity—the ability to detect true treatment effects—preventing approval of ineffective or unsafe drugs.^[60] A notable example is the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a large-scale RCT initiated in the 1990s, which examined hormone therapy in postmenopausal women using placebo controls to evaluate risks such as cardiovascular events and breast cancer. The trial's design highlighted how control groups reveal unintended harms, with the hormone therapy arm showing increased risks compared to placebo, influencing clinical guidelines on menopausal treatments. Placebo serves as a common control in such trials to isolate drug effects from psychological factors.^[61] Modern clinical trials increasingly incorporate adaptive designs, allowing modifications like adjusting group sizes based on interim data analysis without compromising integrity. These designs, guided by pre-specified rules, enable sample size re-estimation to enhance power if early results suggest marginal effects, as endorsed by regulatory bodies for efficient resource use in Phase II and III studies. Outcomes in these trials often focus on primary endpoints such as survival rates, quantified using hazard ratios (HR), defined as:

\text{HR} = \frac{\lambda_t}{\lambda_c}

where \lambda_t is the event rate in the treatment group and \lambda_c in the control group; an HR below 1 indicates reduced risk with treatment.^[62]^[63]^[64]

Non-Clinical Experiments

In non-clinical experiments, treatment and control groups facilitate the isolation of causal effects across diverse fields such as psychology, agriculture, and education, enabling researchers to compare outcomes under manipulated conditions against baselines. These designs emphasize randomization to assign subjects to groups, minimizing confounding variables and enhancing the validity of inferences about treatment impacts.^[65] In psychology, treatment and control groups have been pivotal in studies of human behavior, such as Stanley Milgram's 1960s obedience experiments, where participants in the baseline condition (serving as the control) demonstrated 65% compliance with authority instructions to administer what they believed were severe electric shocks, providing a reference for evaluating variations in obedience rates across treatment groups.^[66] Agricultural field trials commonly employ treatment plots receiving interventions like fertilizers against control plots with none, allowing assessment of yield differences while accounting for soil heterogeneity through randomized block designs. Ronald A. Fisher advanced this approach in his 1926 work on field experiment arrangement, and subsequent analyses often use Fisher's exact test for contingency tables to evaluate categorical outcomes, such as pest resistance in treated versus untreated plots. In education, randomized assignment of classes to teaching methods serves as a core design, with control groups receiving standard instruction and treatment groups novel approaches, followed by analysis of learning gains. These designs offer advantages in non-clinical fields, including cost-effective scalability for large-scale testing; in technology, A/B testing exemplifies this by digitally assigning users to control (existing interface) and treatment (modified) groups, enabling rapid iteration on user experience with minimal resource demands compared to physical trials.^[67]

Challenges

Biases

In the context of treatment and control groups, biases represent systematic errors that can distort the estimation of treatment effects, compromising the reliability of experimental conclusions. These biases often stem from flaws in group formation, participant retention, or outcome dissemination, leading to invalid comparisons between groups.^[68] Selection bias occurs when baseline characteristics differ systematically between treatment and control groups, often due to inadequate randomization or allocation concealment, resulting in unequal starting points that confound true treatment impacts.^[68] For example, if the control group has a higher proportion of older participants, any observed differences in outcomes may reflect age-related factors rather than the treatment itself. This imbalance can be quantified using the standardized mean difference (SMD), a metric where values below 0.1 suggest acceptable balance between groups.^[69] Attrition bias, meanwhile, arises from differential dropout rates, such as higher withdrawals in the treatment group due to side effects, which can skew results toward the control group by creating incomplete datasets.^[70] Reporting bias manifests as selective publication or emphasis on favorable outcomes, where negative or null results comparing treatment to control are suppressed, inflating perceived treatment efficacy.^[71] To mitigate these biases beyond initial randomization, researchers can employ covariate adjustment in statistical analysis, such as analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), which accounts for baseline imbalances to refine effect estimates. The ANCOVA model is typically expressed as:

Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X + \beta_2 \text{Treatment} + \epsilon

where Y is the outcome, X represents baseline covariates, Treatment is a binary indicator for group assignment, and \epsilon is the error term; this approach reduces bias and enhances precision in randomized trials.^[72] A notable example of reporting bias is seen in the 2000s clinical trials for rofecoxib (Vioxx), where early studies allegedly prioritized publication of gastrointestinal benefits over cardiovascular risks relative to controls, delaying market withdrawal and contributing to thousands of adverse events.^[73] Control groups primarily safeguard internal validity by enabling causal inference within the study population, isolating treatment effects from external confounders. However, if the control group is unrepresentative of broader populations—due to restrictive eligibility criteria—this can impair external validity, limiting the generalizability of findings to real-world settings.^[74] Blinding participants and assessors to group assignments further reduces detection bias, where knowledge of treatment status might influence outcome measurement.^[68]

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations in assigning participants to treatment and control groups center on ensuring participant welfare while advancing scientific knowledge, particularly in human studies where randomization may involve withholding potentially beneficial interventions. A foundational principle is clinical equipoise, defined as genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community about the comparative merits of the proposed treatment versus the control, which justifies random assignment without compromising the physician's duty to provide optimal care.^[75] This uncertainty must exist at the community level to ethically proceed, as individual investigators' preferences alone do not suffice. Complementing equipoise is the requirement for informed consent, which mandates disclosing the risks of group assignment, including potential exposure to ineffective controls, lack of guaranteed benefit, and alternatives to participation, to uphold patient autonomy and enable voluntary decisions.^[76] Significant ethical dilemmas arise from the use of control groups, such as withholding established treatments, which can exacerbate harm in serious conditions like cancer trials where no-treatment arms may delay life-saving therapies.^[77] In contrast, placebo controls introduce concerns over deception, as participants may receive inert interventions while believing they could benefit, potentially leading to psychological distress or physical harm if effective options exist.^[78] These issues highlight the tension between methodological rigor and moral obligations, requiring justification that no serious or irreversible harm will result from control assignment. International guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki (originally adopted in 1964 and revised in 2024), stipulate that control groups must be ethically justified by comparing new interventions to the best proven methods unless no such options exist or compelling methodological reasons apply, with safeguards against additional risks; the 2024 revision reaffirms these principles while clarifying conditions for placebo or no-intervention controls, such as acceptability only when no proven intervention exists or for scientifically sound methodological reasons.^[79] Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) provide oversight to evaluate these justifications, ensuring compliance with ethical standards like those emerging from historical abuses. The 1940s Tuskegee syphilis study exemplifies such failures, where researchers withheld penicillin from a control group of Black men after it became available, denying informed consent and causing unnecessary suffering, which spurred reforms including the 1974 National Research Act mandating IRBs and consent protocols.^[80] To balance these concerns, active controls—using established treatments—are preferred when proven interventions exist, minimizing harm compared to placebo or no-treatment designs.^[33] Additionally, ethical practice requires post-trial access to beneficial treatments for control participants who may have been deprived during the study, as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, to honor reciprocity and prevent abandonment after contributing to research.^[81]

References

[1]
Design of Small Clinical Trials - NCBI - NIH
A control group in a clinical trial is a group of individuals used as a comparison for a group of participants who receive the experimental treatment. The main ...KEY CONCEPTS IN CLINICAL... · TRADITIONAL CLINICAL...
[2]
The Choice of Controls for Providing Validity and Evidence in ... - NIH
A control group is comprised of people similar to the test group in all aspects that affect the outcome except for the treatment/intervention of interest.
[3]
A Primer to the Randomized Controlled Trial - PMC - NIH
Mar 24, 2023 · The goal of the control group is to control for potential threats to internal validity (accuracy) so that the dependent variable (outcome) is ...Overview: Randomized... · Figure 2 · Considerations For Selection...
[4]
Terminology of experimental design - BSCI 1510L Literature and ...
Sep 26, 2024 · In a simple experiment, the control group includes replicates that are lacking the experimental factor. The treatment group includes ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[5]
1.4.4 - Control and Placebo Groups | STAT 200
A control group is an experimental condition that does not receive the actual treatment and may serve as a baseline. A control group may receive a placebo ...
[6]
[PDF] Experimental Designs
In this design, the sample is divided into two treatment groups and two control groups. One treatment group and one control group receive the pretest, and ...
[7]
Experiments
One group, the treatment group , received the drug. The other group, called the control group , did not receive any drug treatment. In an experiment, the ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|separator|>
[8]
Experimental Design
The seminal ideas for experimental design can be traced to Sir Ronald Fisher. The publication of Fisher's Statistical methods for research workers in 1925 and ...
[9]
[PDF] The design of experiments
R. A. FISHER (1925-1963). Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd Ltd., Edinburgh. R. A. FISHER (1956, 1959) Statistical ...
[10]
R. A. Fisher and Experimental Design: A Review - jstor
R. A. Fisher's contributions to experimental design are surveyed, particular attention being paid to (1) the basic principles of replication, randomisation and ...
[11]
[PDF] EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR ...
In this chapter we shall examine the validity of 16 experimental designs against 12 com mon threats to valid inference. By experi.
[12]
A Discussion of Statistical Methods for Design and Analysis of ...
Three fundamental experimental design principles attributed to Fisher are randomization, replication, and blocking. A scientist with a clear understanding of ...
[13]
The importance of using placebo controls in nonpharmacological ...
Including a control arm allows estimation of regression to the mean or natural fluctuations during the course of a disease, which may be interpreted as evidence ...Missing: maturation | Show results with:maturation
[14]
Threats to validity of Research Design
Internal validity refers specifically to whether an experimental treatment/condition makes a difference or not, and whether there is sufficient evidence to ...
[15]
12.2. Causality - Computational and Inferential Thinking
In randomized controlled experiments, if differences are more than chance, and the treatment is randomly assigned, there is evidence of causation.
[16]
1.3.5.3. Two-Sample <i>t</i>-Test for Equal Means
The formulas for paired data are somewhat simpler than the formulas for unpaired data. The variances of the two samples may be assumed to be equal or unequal.Missing: independent | Show results with:independent
[17]
Placebo in clinical trials - PMC - NIH
Placebos have been conceptualized by their inert content and their use as controls in clinical trials and treatments in clinical practice.
[18]
Placebo-Controlled Trials in Surgery: A Systematic Review and ...
Apr 29, 2016 · Placebo was defined by the 2 domains, that is, inertness and awareness. An intervention is said to be inert if there is no active agent that ...Missing: mechanics | Show results with:mechanics
[19]
Is the Placebo Powerless?: An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing ...
٢٤‏/٠٥‏/٢٠٠١ · Placebos have been reported to improve subjective and objective outcomes in up to 30 to 40 percent of patients with a wide range of clinical ...
[20]
Assessment of Placebo Response in Objective and Subjective ...
١٦‏/٠٩‏/٢٠٢٠ · The findings of this study suggest that improvements in clinical outcomes among participants randomized to placebo were not limited to subjective outcomes.
[21]
Commentary: The 1944 patulin trial: the first properly controlled ...
The 1944 patulin trial deserves wider recognition as the first well controlled, multicentre clinical trial to have been conducted under the aegis of the ...
[22]
from alternation to randomised allocation in clinical trials in the 1940s
The first trial, carried out in 1943-4 to investigate patulin treatment for ... trial was not double blind or placebo controlled. Menaces such as HIV ...
[23]
[PDF] Guidance for Industry - FDA
Advantages of Placebo-controlled Trials (2.1.6) ... study drug to placebo) may enhance the safety database and may also make the study more attractive ...
[24]
Placebo-controlled trials: good science or medical neglect? - PMC
The placebo-controlled clinical trial has a long history of being the standard for clinical investigations of new drugs. By blindly and randomly allocating ...
[25]
Should the Food and Drug Administration Limit Placebo-Controlled ...
Jul 8, 2022 · The FDA prefers PCTs for most interventional research and considers them essential to test the efficacy of drugs. Between 2006-2011, 40 percent ...
[26]
Estimating the Size of Treatment Effects: Moving Beyond P Values
Calculation of a 95-percent CI around the Cohen's d score can facilitate the comparison of effect sizes of different treatments. When effect sizes of similar ...
[27]
[PDF] Effect Size (ES)
Effect size (ES) is a name given to a family of indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. Unlike significance tests, these indices are ...
[28]
6b.1 - Control Groups | STAT 509
Investigators can use an active control group in a superiority trial, an equivalence trial, or a non-inferiority trial.
[29]
[PDF] Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials to Establish Effectiveness - FDA
Specifically, this design is chosen when it would not be ethical to use a placebo, or a no-treatment control, or a very low dose of an active drug, because ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[30]
2 Design of Small Clinical Trials - The National Academies Press
In a trial with no-treatment concurrent controls, a group receiving the experimental intervention is compared with a group not receiving the treatment or ...
[31]
Waitlist Control Groups in Psychology Experiments - Verywell Mind
Dec 18, 2023 · A waitlist control group is a group of participants who do not receive the experimental treatment, but who are put on a waiting list to receive the ...
[32]
21 CFR 314.126 -- Adequate and well-controlled studies. - eCFR
An active treatment study may include additional treatment groups, however, such as a placebo control or a dose-comparison control. Active treatment trials ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
Randomized Controlled Trials: Ethical and Scientific Issues in ... - NIH
The choice between placebo and active controls in clinical trials affects the quality of the result as well as the ethical and scientific acceptability.
[34]
AIDS, Ethics, and Activism: Institutional Encounters in the Epidemic's ...
In this paper I would like to examine the role of consultation between ethicists and those at risk for HIV infection in confronting a series of critical policy ...
[35]
Usual and Unusual Care: Existing Practice Control Groups In ... - NIH
This article focuses on control groups that are used to contrast behavioral interventions with existing treatments or healthcare practices.
[36]
Placebo versus Best-Available-Therapy Control Group in Clinical ...
It is a scientific tool for evaluating treatments in groups of research participants with the aim of improving the care of patients in the future (2).
[37]
Disappointment and drop-out rate after being allocated to control ...
Disappointment was common after allocation to the control group. This is a probable explanation of the higher drop-out rate in the control group.
[38]
An Overview of Randomization Techniques for Clinical Trials - NIH
Randomization is the process of assigning participants to treatment and control groups, assuming that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to ...How To Randomize? · Block Randomization · Covariate Adaptive...
[39]
A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials
Aug 16, 2021 · It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and ...
[40]
8.1 - Randomization | STAT 509
Randomization is effective in reducing bias because it guarantees that treatment assignment will not be based on the patient's prognostic factors.
[41]
An overview of randomization techniques - NIH
Randomization as a method of experimental control has been extensively used in human clinical trials and other biological experiments.
[42]
The arrangement of field experiments - Rothamsted Repository
Fisher, RA 1926. The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture. 33, pp. 503-515.Missing: randomization | Show results with:randomization
[43]
Fisher, Bradford Hill, and randomization - Oxford Academic
In the 1920s RA Fisher presented randomization as an essential ingredient of his approach to the design and analysis of experiments, validating significance ...
[44]
How to Do Random Allocation (Randomization) - PMC
Random allocation is a technique that chooses individuals for treatment groups and control groups entirely by chance with no regard to the will of researchers.
[45]
Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized ... - NIH
The intention-to-treat analysis preserves the prognostic balance afforded by randomization, thereby minimizing any risk of bias that may be introduced by ...
[46]
Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture - PMC
The terms single-blind, double-blind, and triple-blind are often used to describe studies in which one, two, or three parties, respectively, are blinded to ...
[47]
Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how? - PMC - NIH
Blinding is an important methodologic feature of RCTs to minimize bias and maximize the validity of the results. Researchers should strive to blind participants ...
[48]
Blinding in Clinical Trials: Types of Blinding | EUPATI Open Classroom
Single blind or single-masked. The participants are blinded but no one else is. Double blind or double-masked ... Triple blind. The participants, clinicians ...
[49]
Blinding properties of methods for supplying drug kits to ... - NIH
Oct 26, 2015 · Drug kits enable investigators to administer study drug to subjects in a blinded manner without the assistance of an unblinded pharmacist.
[50]
[PDF] SOP for preparation for randomisation blinding and code breaks
Jan 16, 2018 · The protocol and SOP should define the level of blinding e.g. unblinded, single-blind or double-blind and how the blinding will be implemented ( ...
[51]
Blinding in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal ...
Mar 24, 2016 · Detection bias refers to the risk of how the evaluation of the outcome bias effects. Blinding of outcome assessors reduces detection bias.
[52]
Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical,... - PAIN
Blinding is challenging in randomised controlled trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies for pain, mainly because of their complex and ...
[53]
LSD Psychotherapy and the Drug Amendments of 1962 - jstor
Aug 16, 2012 · the 1960s, public controversy over LSD's increasing recreational use ... sonably concluded that a double-blind trial was impractical with LSD,.
[54]
The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical ...
Feb 6, 2009 · Blinding of participants in surgical trials can often be achieved. ... London AJ, Kadane JB: Placebos that harm: sham surgery controls in clinical ...
[55]
[PDF] Changes in Beliefs Identify Unblinding in Randomized Controlled ...
Double-blinded trials are often considered the gold standard for research, but significant bias may result from unblinding of participants and investigators ...
[56]
Step 3: Clinical Research - FDA
Jan 4, 2018 · Researchers design Phase 3 studies to demonstrate whether or not a product offers a treatment benefit to a specific population.
[57]
An Overview of Phase II Clinical Trial Designs - PMC - NIH
Phase II trials determine if a new treatment has promising efficacy and safety, usually with a few hundred patients, to warrant further phase III trials.
[58]
[PDF] Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10
This guideline first describes the purpose of the control group and the types of control groups commonly employed to demonstrate efficacy. It then discusses the ...
[59]
Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy ...
Jul 17, 2002 · The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) focuses on defining the risks and benefits of strategies that could potentially reduce the incidence of ...
[60]
[PDF] Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics - FDA
IV. ADAPTIVE DESIGNS BASED ON NON-COMPARATIVE DATA........................ 10. V. ADAPTIVE DESIGNS BASED ON COMPARATIVE DATA .<|control11|><|separator|>
[61]
Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials | New England Journal of Medicine
Jul 7, 2016 · It is critical to ensure that the sample size at the interim analysis is adequate for making the adaptive decision. If patients are enrolled ...
[62]
[PDF] Logrank Tests Assuming an Exponential Model using Historical ...
HR. The hazard ratio is the treatment group's hazard rate divided by historical control group's hazard rate. HR = λt / λc. λt and λc. The hazard rates of the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[63]
Sage Research Methods - Random Factors in ANOVA
... teachers in the experiment could be drawn from a larger pool of qualified teachers, then randomly assigned to employ one instructional method or the other.Missing: randomized | Show results with:randomized
[64]
[PDF] BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE' - Columbia University
This article describes a procedure for the study of destructive obedience in the laboratory. It coruists of ordering a naive S to administer increasingly.
[65]
Exact test of goodness-of-fit - Handbook of Biological Statistics
Jul 20, 2015 · For example, if you do a genetic cross in which you expect a 3:1 ratio of green to yellow pea pods, and you have a total of 50 plants, your null ...
[66]
A randomized controlled trial to examine the effect of two teaching ...
Sep 5, 2019 · The present study compared two pedagogical methods in the Swedish preschool context as to their effect on language and communication, executive functions, ...
[67]
Online Experimentation: Benefits, Operational and Methodological ...
Jul 28, 2022 · This article provides a primer to business leaders, data scientists, and academic researchers on business experimentation at scale.
[68]
History of Animal Husbandry Department
The first Angus calf recorded as bred by Iowa State College ... During the early 1920s, breeding sheep of various breeds were exhibited at the Iowa State Fair.Missing: controls | Show results with:controls
[69]
Risk of bias: why measure it, and how? | Eye - Nature
Sep 30, 2021 · Risk of bias is when a study's design or execution impacts results, deviating from truth. High risk of bias can exaggerate treatment effects.
[70]
Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching - PMC
Dec 10, 2018 · Standardized mean difference (SMD) is the most commonly used statistic to examine the balance of covariate distribution between treatment groups ...
[71]
Attrition bias | Catalog of Bias
Attrition bias is the unequal loss of participants from study groups, where systematic differences between those who leave and those who stay can bias results.
[72]
Outcome reporting bias | Catalog of Bias - The Catalogue of Bias
Studies that selectively omit or modify outcomes of interest have been shown to distort the overall treatment effect. Kirkham and colleagues conducted a ...Background · Impact · Preventive steps
[73]
Bias, precision and statistical power of analysis of covariance in the ...
Apr 9, 2014 · Our results show the advantages of ANCOVA in reducing bias, increasing precision and providing appropriate power of statistical testing across a ...
[74]
What have we learnt from Vioxx? - PMC - NIH
Several early, large clinical trials of rofecoxib were not published in the academic literature for years after Merck made them available to the FDA, ...
[75]
Internal and external validity: can you apply research study results to ...
Lack of external validity implies that the results of the trial may not apply to patients who differ from the study population and, consequently, could lead to ...
[76]
Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research - PubMed
The ethics of clinical research requires equipoise--a state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the clinical investigator regarding the comparative ...
[77]
Informed Consent - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Effective informed consent requires a thorough discussion of all relevant risks, which typically encompasses general risks, risks specific to the procedure, ...Continuing Education Activity · Function · Issues of Concern · Clinical Significance
[78]
Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology
Mar 11, 2022 · The main ethical challenges of conducting phase I trials stem from three issues. First, phase I trials often involve higher research burden and ...
[79]
Ethical Use of Placebo Controls in Research | AMA-Code
Placebo controls are ethically justifiable when no other research design will yield the requisite data. Assess the use of placebo controls in relation to the ...
[80]
WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical ...
Medical research with individuals, groups, or communities in situations of particular vulnerability is only justified if it is responsive to their health needs ...
[81]
About The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee - CDC
Sep 4, 2024 · The 40-year Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee ended in 1972 and resulted in drastic changes to standard research practices.Effects on Research · View All Syphilis Study · Timeline
[82]
Post-trial access to treatment for patients participating in clinical trials
Depriving a trial subject who have responded well to study therapy from the post-trial access would defeat the basic principle of medical ethics. Before ...