Example collocations logo

Randomized in sentence

77 examples of Randomized in a sentence

Randomized trials ultimately showed no benefit, and a clear increase in breast cancer and vascular blood clots.
Unfortunately, when investigators undertook randomized trials, they found that treated patients had a higher death rate.
Here, although randomized trials are not feasible, it remains possible to follow evidence-based medicine’s primary rule: to base action on systematic summaries of the highest quality evidence available.
Similarly, for a randomized evaluation in Zambia on which I worked, my colleagues and I collected data on approximately 2,500 adolescents and young adults.
Several well-managed, randomized, long-term human trials have shown almost no survival benefit for those who are screened, diagnosed, and treated, compared to those who were never screened.
The next target for the 15 economists is the use of randomized controlled trials to test whether interventions are effective.
Peru, which has received a third of all laptops provided through the organization One Laptop per Child, hosted the first randomized controlled trial to test whether children with a computer did better than those without.
At a recent World Health Organization meeting in Geneva, Ripley Ballou, the head of GlaxoSmithKline’s program to develop a vaccine, argued that a randomized controlled trial comparing a potential Ebola vaccine with a vaccine that protects against another virus would be the most ethical way to assess efficacy.
If that is true, a randomized controlled trial could be the most ethical option.
In a letter published last month in The Lancet, doctors, scientists, and bioethicists from a wide range of countries – including Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal, as well as Britain, France, Hong Kong, and the United States – argued that a randomized trial is justified only when there is “equipoise,” or balance, between the two options offered.
Unlike in a randomized trial, no one would receive a placebo, and it should still be possible to detect which treatments are effective.
A randomized controlled trial in Japanese children found that type A influenza rates in children taking vitamin D supplements were about 40% lower than in those taking a placebo; there was no significant difference in type B influenza rates.
Another intellectually fashionable approach is to conduct small randomized trials to examine, say, the effectiveness of school-attendance incentives or immunization campaigns.
But the resulting validity comes at the cost of generality: randomized controlled trials in the form of local experiments cannot replace an overarching vision of the social good.
As with any therapeutic intervention, the most convincing and direct proof of the preventive efficacy of antioxidant supplements requires randomized, controlled clinical trials.
Indeed, another analysis, including 14 randomized trials with 1,213 patients six months after a stroke, compared the effects of conventional stroke rehabilitation with and without acupuncture as a supplement.
A recent study conducted in China, including 862 patients who were between the second and tenth day after onset of acute stroke, is the largest truly randomized trial using death or dependency as the primary outcome.
There is only one way to really know if any intervention does more good than harm, and that is via randomized controlled trials.
But a carefully controlled randomized intervention designed by Rema Hanna, Esther Duflo, and Michael Greenstone showed otherwise.
The current so-called “gold standard” of what constitutes good evidence is the randomized control trial, or RCT, an idea that started in medicine two centuries ago, moved to agriculture, and became the rage in economics during the past two decades.
That is because EBM, though based on data from randomized trials and rigorous experiments, is designed for situations that approximate the conditions of patients in those tests.
To approve new pharmaceuticals, the US Food and Drug Administration requires two well-designed randomized controlled trials in which the drug demonstrates superiority over placebo treatment.
While there is certainly value in collecting data (via, for example, randomized control trials), there is also a need for deductive and inductive reasoning, guided by common sense – and not just on the part of experts.
Sackett implies, but does not stipulate, that epidemiological evidence (findings from randomized controlled trials and large-cohort studies carried out over many years) should underpin doctors’ decisions about patients – and, one hopes, in consultation with them.
For starters, the emphasis on randomized controlled trials as the “gold standard” of evidence has meant that any drug that has outperformed a competitor in a trial may now be classified as “evidence-based.”
High-quality randomized trials are as important now as they were at the time of the evidence-based movement’s founding.
Development economists, for their part, argued that much more attention would be paid to randomized trials and field experiments.
For example, recent work with field experiments and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which has caught on like wildfire among development economists, lies strictly in the tradition of bottom-up development.
Learning requires some degree of extrapolation, converting randomized evaluations from hard evidence into soft evidence.
Macro-development economists need to recognize the advantages of the experimental approach and adopt the policy mindset of enthusiasts of randomized evaluation.
Back