View in EDS

Experimentation Without Randomised Controls.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Experimentation Without Randomised Controls.
Authors: Simon SD; Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Source: Journal of oral rehabilitation [J Oral Rehabil] 2025 Aug; Vol. 52 (8), pp. 1167-1174. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Apr 04.
Publication Type: Journal Article; Review
Language: English
Journal Info: Publisher: Blackwell Scientific Publications Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0433604 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1365-2842 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 0305182X NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Oral Rehabil Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Original Publication: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.
MeSH Terms: Research Design* , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic*/methods, Humans ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Abstract: Background: In an experimental study, researchers often have the ability to assign different treatments. This is often done with randomisation. There are many settings; however, where it is not desirable to use randomisation. It is unclear how to best design an experimental study without randomisation while still providing persuasive evidence.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to outline several approaches, broadly classified as quasiexperimental studies, where researchers can use methodologically sound alternatives to randomisation.
Results: The interrupted time series, phased inventions, withdrawal design, waiting list control group, stepped wedge design and regression discontinuity all represent approaches where careful nonrandom allocation to treatment groups can produce high-quality research findings.
Conclusion: Quasiexperimental studies can produce rigorous research findings. The allocation to treatment groups and the times of evaluation need to be carefully designed. Proper use of these quasiexperimental approaches can enhance research options in settings where the research team has control of allocation but finds randomisation to be problematic.
(© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
References: N. Pandis, Y. K. Tu, P. S. Fleming, and A. Polychronopoulou, “Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies: Complementary or Competing?,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 146, no. 5 (2014): 633–640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.08.002.
S. N. Papageorgiou, V. Koretsi, and J. Andreas, “Bias From Historical Control Groups Used in Orthodontic Research: A Meta‐Epidemiological Study,” European Journal of Orthodontics 39, no. 1 (2017): 98–105, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw035.
International Conference on Harmonization, “ICH Topic E10—Choice of Control Group in Clinical Trials,” 2000 Note for Guidance on Choice of Control Group in Clinical Trials. (CPMP/ICH/364/96). London, UK: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.
P. Rosenbaum, Observational Studies, 2nd ed. (Springer‐Verlag, 2002).
E. Cameron and L. Pauling, “Supplemental Ascorbate in the Supportive Treatment of Cancer: Prolongation of Survival Times in Terminal Human Cancer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 73, no. 10 (1976): 3685–3689, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.73.10.3685.
H. Nishi, S. Horikoshi, T. Yoshida, et al., “Efficacy of Low‐Level Laser Therapy for Oral Mucositis in Hematologic Patients Undergoing Transplantation: A Single‐Arm Prospective Study,” Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 11 (2023): 1603, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13111603.
Y. Ohbayashi, O. Imataki, M. Uemura, et al., “Oral Microorganisms and Bloodstream Infection in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation,” Clinical Oral Investigations 25, no. 7 (2021): 4359–4367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784‐020‐03749‐9.
S. Y. Kim, D. Shin, H. J. Kim, and M. H. Karm, “Changes of Knowledge and Practical Skills Before and After Retraining for Basic Life Support: Focused on Students of Dental School,” International Journal of Medical Sciences 17, no. 18 (2020): 3082–3090, https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.47343.
D. T. Campbell, Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers, ed. E. S. Overman (University of Chicago Press, 1988).
L. H. Timm, G. Farrag, D. Wolf, M. Baxmann, and F. Schwendicke, “Effect of Electronic Reminders on Patients' Compliance During Clear Aligner Treatment: An Interrupted Time Series Study,” Scientific Reports 12, no. 1 (2022): 16652, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐022‐20820‐5.
J. Atia, F. Evison, S. Gallier, et al., “Effectiveness of Clinical Decision Support in Controlling Inappropriate Red Blood Cell and Platelet Transfusions, Speciality Specific Responses and Behavioural Change,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 22, no. 1 (2022): 342, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911‐022‐02045‐8.
P. Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (Random House, 2008).
K. M. Jones, S. M. Swearer, and P. C. Friman, “Relax and Try This Instead: Abbreviated Habit Reversal for Maladaptive Self‐Biting,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 30, no. 4 (1997): 697–699, https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30‐697.
T. K. Houston, J. S. Richman, H. L. Coley, et al., “Does Delayed Measurement Affect Patient Reports of Provider Performance? Implications for Performance Measurement of Medical Assistance With Tobacco Cessation: A Dental PBRN Study,” BMC Health Services Research 8 (2008): 100, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472‐6963‐8‐100.
L. Schafthuizen, L. Spruit‐Bentvelzen, M. van Dijk, J. Rosmalen, and E. Ista, “Implementation of a Nursing Oral Health Care Protocol in a University Teaching Hospital: A Cluster‐Randomized Stepped‐Wedge Design,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene 22, no. 3 (2024): 661–671, https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12748.
C. C. Fok, D. Henry, and J. Allen, “Research Designs for Intervention Research With Small Samples II: Stepped Wedge and Interrupted Time‐Series Designs,” Prevention Science 16, no. 7 (2015): 967–977, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121‐015‐0569‐4.
E. T. Roberts, J. M. Mellor, M. P. McInerny, and L. M. Sabik, “Effects of a Medicaid Dental Coverage “Cliff” on Dental Care Access Among Low‐Income Medicare Beneficiaries,” Health Services Research 58, no. 3 (2023): 589–598, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6773.13981.
W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell, Experimental and Quasi‐Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 2002).
K. W. Davidson, M. Silverstein, K. Cheung, R. A. Paluch, and L. H. Epstein, “Experimental Designs to Optimize Treatments for Individuals: Personalized N‐Of‐1 Trials,” JAMA Pediatrics 175, no. 4 (2021): 404–409, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.5801.
B. C. Reeves, G. A. Wells, and H. Waddington, “Quasi‐Experimental Study Designs Series‐Paper 5: A Checklist for Classifying Studies Evaluating the Effects on Health Interventions—A Taxonomy Without Labels,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 89 (2017): 30–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016.
C. Hategeka, H. Ruton, M. Karamouzian, L. D. Lynd, and M. R. Law, “Use of Interrupted Time Series Methods in the Evaluation of Health System Quality Improvement Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review,” BMJ Global Health 5, no. 10 (2020): e003567, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh‐2020‐003567.
G. Ogrinc, L. Davies, D. Goodman, P. Batalden, F. Davidoff, and D. Stevens, “SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised Publication Guidelines From a Detailed Consensus Process,” BMJ Quality and Safety 25, no. 12 (2016): 986–992, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs‐2015‐004411.
D. C. Des Jarlais, C. Lyles, N. Crepaz, and Trend Group, “Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement,” American Journal of Public Health 94, no. 3 (2004): 361–366, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.3.361.
Y. Kudo, K. Takeuchi, T. Kusama, et al., “Differences in Prevalence of Self‐Reported Oral Hypofunction Between Older Adult Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and the General Older Population: A Cross‐Sectional Study Using Propensity Score Matching,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 51, no. 6 (2024): 924–930, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13658.
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: interrupted time series; quasiexperimental studies; stepped wedge design; withdrawal design
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20250404 Date Completed: 20250828 Latest Revision: 20250828
Update Code: 20250828
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13960
PMID: 40183208
Database: MEDLINE
Description
Abstract:Background: In an experimental study, researchers often have the ability to assign different treatments. This is often done with randomisation. There are many settings; however, where it is not desirable to use randomisation. It is unclear how to best design an experimental study without randomisation while still providing persuasive evidence.<br />Objectives: The aim of this study was to outline several approaches, broadly classified as quasiexperimental studies, where researchers can use methodologically sound alternatives to randomisation.<br />Results: The interrupted time series, phased inventions, withdrawal design, waiting list control group, stepped wedge design and regression discontinuity all represent approaches where careful nonrandom allocation to treatment groups can produce high-quality research findings.<br />Conclusion: Quasiexperimental studies can produce rigorous research findings. The allocation to treatment groups and the times of evaluation need to be carefully designed. Proper use of these quasiexperimental approaches can enhance research options in settings where the research team has control of allocation but finds randomisation to be problematic.<br /> (© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
ISSN:1365-2842
DOI:10.1111/joor.13960