Abstract
The classical randomized controlled trial (RCT) is still held up by many researchers as the gold standard design for evaluating the effectiveness of a clinical intervention, despite its limitations. This has the consequence of polarizing the complementary medicine research community into those who wish to force research into this model, and those who reject the RCT as impractical. In this, the second of two papers which assess the usefulness of specific research designs for evaluating the provision of complementary therapies in the National Health Service (NHS), we describe two alternative RCT designs: the partial randomization (randomized block) design; and a pragmatic design with prior randomization. The strengths and weaknesses of each design are discussed. We conclude that they should be considered as serious alternatives to the ‘old favourite’ in the ‘race’ to evaluate the potential contribution of complementary therapies to the NHS.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
