The importance of considering trial design when interpreting clinical trial results.
BACKGROUND
In recent decades, clinical trials have played an increasingly important role in determining how we practice. Trial results proving that a clinical finding poses risk have led to interventions that try to reduce risk. Clinical trials proving that a particular therapy provides better outcome than another therapy have changed the therapies we now use. Unfortunately, the results of clinical trials are too often affected by biases or design issues that may overtly or covertly alter the results or the way they should really be used. In addition, these biases and design and analysis issues are rarely evident in the abstract sections or key figures and tables in the publications reporting the trials, which may be all the busy physician either reads or remembers.


METHODS
This manuscript discusses the issues involved in optimally understanding clinical trial design and interpretation so that practitioners can better understand how to intelligently read and apply trial results to clinical practice.


CONCLUSIONS
Clinical trial results can not be properly applied without consideration of trial design features and intertrial comparisons.
Reiffel
J A
JA
Department of Medicine, Columbia Presbyterian Campus, NY Presbyterian Hospital, and Columbia University, New York, USA.
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001145:Arrhythmias, Cardiac / Q000628:therapy; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable; D006801:Humans; D012107:Research Design
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents