Randomized controlled trials, also known as true experiments or intervention studies, are considered to be the gold standard research design for demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and an outcome. This article will describe key methodological concepts that make the randomized controlled trial this gold standard. Practicing from an evidence-based perspective requires practitioners to be able to critique the strengths and weaknesses of a research study in order to make decisions about adoption of the intervention into one's practice area. Key components to the critique of a randomized controlled trial are defined and the process is illustrated by a critique of Gallo and colleagues article, A Study of Naloxone Effect on Urinary Retention in the Patient Receiving Morphine PCA, published in this issue.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Susan S. Salmond (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: