Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are commended on this thorough and clinically relevant examination and review on the interpretation of randomized clinical trials. The review evaluates the differences, advantages and disadvantages of random sampling versus random treatment assignment and then extensively describes the considerations in interpreting data from RCTs and applying the conclusions to the target patient population. This article is educational and useful to the readership, both clinicians and statisticians. The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Comment: “The authors are commended on this thorough and clinically relevant examination and review on the interpretation of randomized clinical trials. The review evaluates the differences, advantages and disadvantages of random sampling versus random treatment assignment and then extensively describes the considerations in interpreting data from RCTs and applying the conclusions to the target patient population. This article is educational and useful to the readership, both clinicians and statisticians. The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form.”
Author response: We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. We indeed hope that this article will be of use to both clinicians and statisticians.
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the opportunity to review the current manuscript. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the application of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in addressing clinical issues. In my assessment, I found the paper to be highly informative, encompassing various facets of RCTs.
Moreover, I believe that the scope of this study extends beyond its application solely to cancer-related diseases and could potentially find a place in statistical journals for broader relevance across various clinical problems. However, I acknowledge that the decision to publish it in the cancer journal would depend on the journal's specific policy.
Author Response
Comment: “I appreciate the opportunity to review the current manuscript. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the application of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in addressing clinical issues. In my assessment, I found the paper to be highly informative, encompassing various facets of RCTs. Moreover, I believe that the scope of this study extends beyond its application solely to cancer-related diseases and could potentially find a place in statistical journals for broader relevance across various clinical problems. However, I acknowledge that the decision to publish it in the cancer journal would depend on the journal's specific policy.”
Author response: We thank the reviewer for allowing us to elaborate on this important point. This is the third in a series of methodology reviews we have published in Cancers (the first is Msaouel et al. Cancers 2021, PMID: 34205968; the second is Msaouel et al. Cancers 2022, PMID: 36010916). All three reviews have broader implications across medicine. However, we chose an oncology journal because this is our applied field of practice and many of our motivating examples are cancer-related. Furthermore, the previous two articles enjoyed a broad readership (more than 10,000 views and 25 citations to date) from both clinicians and statisticians. The other advantage that compelled us to choose again Cancers is that it suits the format and length of this review and allows free access to our text in its final formatting and to our supplementary material for the whole community anywhere in the world. We hope that readers across disciplines will find it of use. The reviewer is indeed correct that more focused articles further elaborating on specific aspects of this review will be published from our group in statistical journals.
