Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2005 Jun;14(3):175–178. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011478

Do clinical trials improve quality of care? A comparison of clinical processes and outcomes in patients in a clinical trial and similar patients outside a trial where both groups are managed according to a strict protocol

J West 1, J Wright 1, D Tuffnell 1, D Jankowicz 1, R West 1
PMCID: PMC1744006  PMID: 15933313

Abstract

Background: The conventional view that participants in randomised controlled trials sacrifice themselves for the good of future patients is challenged by increasing evidence to suggest that individual patients benefit from participation in trials.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that trial participants receive higher quality care and, as a consequence, have better outcomes than patients receiving guideline driven routine care.

Methods: Retrospective comparative study of 408 women with pre-eclampsia all managed according to a strict protocol. Trial participants were 86 women who participated in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of magnesium sulphate for the treatment of pre-eclampsia (Magpie Trial); 322 non-participants formed the control group. Indicators of the process of care and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results: Trial participants were significantly more likely to have received daily blood tests (odds ratio (OR) 6.82, 95% CI 1.62 to 28.72) and had their respiration rate measured hourly (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.92) than control patients. There were no significant differences in other markers of clinical process and no significant difference in clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: This study shows minor differences in process markers and no difference in clinical outcomes between patients in a clinical trial and patients receiving protocol driven care. The benefits of improved clinical care that have previously been associated with being in a trial may be explained by the use of clear clinical protocols. In routine practice, patients may be well advised to insist on treatment as part of a protocol.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (68.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman Douglas, Carroli Guillermo, Duley Lelia, Farrell Barbara, Moodley Jack, Neilson James, Smith David, Magpie Trial Collaboration Group Do women with pre-eclampsia, and their babies, benefit from magnesium sulphate? The Magpie Trial: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002 Jun 1;359(9321):1877–1890. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08778-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertelsen K. Protocol allocation and exclusion in two Danish randomised trials in ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 1991 Dec;64(6):1172–1176. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Braunholtz D. A., Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect". J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;54(3):217–224. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00305-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brocklehurst P. Randomised controlled trials in perinatal medicine: 2. Recruitment of a pregnant woman or her newborn child into more than one trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Jul;104(7):765–767. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb12016.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell H., Hotchkiss R., Bradshaw N., Porteous M. Integrated care pathways. BMJ. 1998 Jan 10;316(7125):133–137. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. De Amici D., Klersy C., Ramajoli F., Brustia L., Politi P. Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia. Control Clin Trials. 2000 Apr;21(2):103–114. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00054-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Featherstone K., Donovan J. L. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1177–1180. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grimshaw J. M., Russell I. T. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gülmezoglu M., Villar J., Hofmeyr J., Duley L., Belizan J. M. Randomised trials in maternal and perinatal medicine: global partnerships are the way forward. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Dec;105(12):1244–1247. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10001.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hallstrom Al, Friedman Lawrence, Denes Pablo, Rizo-Patron Carlos, Morris Mary, CAST Investigators. AVID Investigators Do arrhythmia patients improve survival by participating in randomized clinical trials? Observations from the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST)and the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial (AVID). Control Clin Trials. 2003 Jun;24(3):341–352. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00002-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jha P., Deboer D., Sykora K., Naylor C. D. Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 May;27(6):1335–1342. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(96)00018-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Karjalainen S., Palva I. Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ. 1989 Oct 28;299(6707):1069–1072. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6707.1069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lilford R. J., Mohammed M. A., Braunholtz D., Hofer T. P. The measurement of active errors: methodological issues. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Dec;12 (Suppl 2):ii8–i12. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lilford R. J., Thornton J. G., Braunholtz D. Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrum. BMJ. 1995 Dec 16;311(7020):1621–1625. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7020.1621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mant J., Hicks N. Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):793–796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Schmidt B., Gillie P., Caco C., Roberts J., Roberts R. Do sick newborn infants benefit from participation in a randomized clinical trial? J Pediatr. 1999 Feb;134(2):151–155. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(99)70428-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Weijer C., Freedman B., Fuks A., Robbins J., Shapiro S., Skrutkowska M. What difference does it make to be treated in a clinical trial? A pilot study. Clin Invest Med. 1996 Jun;19(3):179–183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES