Measurements encompasses more than simple quantitative information such as height, weight, volume or frequency. In clinical trials, measurements refer to all the data collected on the subjects including efficacy and safety measures. It's not always clear what measurement should be used and in researching conditions such as schizophrenia, heart attack prevention, cancer, and anorexia nervosa there is a wide assortment of choices. The distinction between objectives versus subjective measurements is drawn and collecting safety data, vitally important in all clinical trials, involves both objective laboratory rests and subjective patient reports. Researchers must also decide when a measurement will be taken and whether to use surrogate and/or composite measurements. Due to the multiplicity of measurement decisions, two research teams may design very different trials and, as a result, obtain very different results.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Chapter 8 — Measurements
Cited References
Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) II Investigators. Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med 1992:327;227–233.
Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, et al. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 2003:289;2554–2559.
Gotzsche P. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double blind trials double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989:10;31–56.
McIntosh V, Jordan J, Carter F, et al. Three psychotherapies for anorexia nervosa: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Psychiat 2005:162;741–747.
Rothman K. Significance questing. Ann Intern Med 1986:105;445–447.
Rothwell P. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” Lancet 2005:365;82–93.
Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. Br Med J 1998:317;1181–1184.
General References
Editorial. Measurement imprecision. Lancet 1992:339;587–588.
Fleming T, Demets D. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996:125;605–613.
Fogg L, Gross D. Threats to validity in randomized clinical trials. Res Nurs Health 2000:23;79–87.
Furberg C. To whom do the research findings apply? Heart 2002:87;570–574.
Guyatt G, Naylor C, Juniper E, et al. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. JAMA 1997:277;1232–1237.
Harris G. New drug points up problems in developing cancer cures. New York Times Dec 21, 2005:A37.
Montori V, Permanyer-Miralda G, Gonzalez I, et al. Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. Br Med J 2005:330;594–596.
Simon S. Statistical evidence in medical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Welsford M, Morrison L. Defining the outcome measures for out-of-hospital trials in acute pulmonary edema. Acad Emerg Med 2002:9;983–988.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Measurements – They'ever Exact. In: It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8906-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8907-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)