Talk:Randomized controlled trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Randomized controlled trial article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated B-Class) Randomized controlled trial is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale. WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 Why 2 control(led) 3 Duplication 4 Content inaccurate?

[edit] Why

Why are there empty sub-headings? Guardian 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] control(led)

which to use in RCT, controlled vs control, is debatable. the number of google hits is 10x larger for the former so we should name it first as it is more widely accepted and understood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mebden (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Duplication

Just noticed that the whole section under Urn randomisation is an exact copy of the section before.DanHertogs 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it happened at this edit. I'll undo it. Good catch. Burlywood 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content inaccurate?

Challanging content: In intro paras -I dont believe randomisation ensures equal allocation - you can still have unequal allocation of confounding factors if you are unlucky. Others agree? (I have made no edits)