External Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials

Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials: “To Whom Do the Results of This Trial Apply?. The Lancet.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2005

ISSN

0140-6736

DOI

10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8

DOI registrant

Elsevier

Link

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Spatial coverage
  • Enterprise data inventories — internal catalogs tagging data products with the regions, sites, or business units they cover, to support governance and compliance. Clinical and epidemiological evidence — external-validity claims attaching a population-region scope to a finding, marking where a result is in scope to be applied.

    This sourceA Lancet review defining external validity as whether randomised-trial results can reasonably be applied to a definable group of patients in a particular clinical setting.

    Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source

    “Relevance depends on external validity (or generalisability)--ie, whether the results can be reasonably applied to a definable group of patients in a particular clinical setting in routine practice.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Eligibility Screen
  • Its failure mode is that strict per-candidate criteria trade away external validity

    This sourceShows that restrictive eligibility criteria and patient selection can narrow trial populations and reduce the external validity of their results.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:b14b3d68ad21 · see in the full table