Over the past 5 decades, the randomized clinical trial has become the gold standard for evaluation of the risks and benefits of new interventions, including drugs, medical devices, and surgical procedures.1
To justify the use of randomization, it is important to note that in a nonrandomized study comparing 2 interventions, a small P value (of which P < .05 is generally considered statistically significant) for a statistical comparison between groups can be due to 1 of 3 sources: chance, causation, or confounding. Because randomized assignments cannot be associated with participant characteristics, effective randomization eliminates the third possibility, enabling direct assessment of potential causal relationships provided that the study is designed, conducted, and analyzed properly.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
DeMets DL, Cook T. Challenges of Non–Intention-to-Treat Analyses. JAMA. 2019;321(2):145–146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19192
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: