TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy assessed in follow-ups of clinical trials: methodological conundrum
AU - Landewé, Robert B. M.
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Increasingly, we see papers describing the long-term follow-up results of randomised clinical trials. Sometimes, like the article by Rantalaiho and colleagues in the previous issue of Arthritis Research & Therapy, the follow-up extends to more than 10 years. It is not uncommon that authors of such articles describe their results as a comparison of the original treatment groups in the original randomised clinical trial. Methodologically, such a comparison is fallible for several reasons. In this editorial, two important sources of bias that may jeopardise the results of such follow-up studies are discussed: confounding by indication and confounding by trial completion
AB - Increasingly, we see papers describing the long-term follow-up results of randomised clinical trials. Sometimes, like the article by Rantalaiho and colleagues in the previous issue of Arthritis Research & Therapy, the follow-up extends to more than 10 years. It is not uncommon that authors of such articles describe their results as a comparison of the original treatment groups in the original randomised clinical trial. Methodologically, such a comparison is fallible for several reasons. In this editorial, two important sources of bias that may jeopardise the results of such follow-up studies are discussed: confounding by indication and confounding by trial completion
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3080
DO - https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3080
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 20723206
SN - 1478-6354
VL - 12
SP - 132
JO - Arthritis research & therapy
JF - Arthritis research & therapy
IS - 4
ER -