Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on November 8, 2006
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2006 18(6):395-396; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl057
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/6/395    most recent
mzl057v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Perneger, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Perneger, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 18 no. 6 © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

Editorial

Ten reasons to conduct a randomized study in quality improvement

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

In the years 2004–06, the Journal has published 192 papers (excluding editorials and letters) of which eight (4.2%) were randomized experiments [1–8]. Four per cent is not enough, considering that randomization is the most direct path to a causal inference. To be effective, we need to understand what causes what in quality improvement. This aim is not compatible with weak research methods. Some quality experts claim that the evaluation of quality projects requires less scientific rigour than ‘academic’ research. It their view, small uncontrolled before/after studies or even spontaneous experiential learning is sufficient. How . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Randomized studies are simple and elegant

You can focus on the important variables

You can do the statistical analysis yourself

It is alright if the intervention is complex

Blinding and placebos are not always necessary

Many things can be randomized

You will be a better researcher

You will get published easily

You may win the Reizenstein prize

You will have fun

Thomas Perneger

Quality of Care Service, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
K. Walshe
Understanding what works--and why--in quality improvement: the need for theory-driven evaluation
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2007; 19(2): 57 - 59.
[Full Text] [PDF]