clinical trials

Practising physicians individualise treatments, hoping to achieve optimal outcomes by tackling relevant patient variables. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is universally accepted as the best means of comparison. Yet doctors sometimes wonder if particular patients might benefit more from treatments that fared worse in the RCT comparisons. Such clinicians may even feel ostracised by their peers for stepping outside treatments based on RCTs and guidelines. Are RCTs the only acceptable evaluations of how patient care can be assessed and delivered?

The social and economic burden of treating patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is rapidly rising. Current projections estimate the global prevalence of individuals with DM to rise from 6.4% (285 million) in 2010 to 7.7% (439 million) in 2030.1 The main problem with this disease entity is its propensity to incur macro- and micro-vascular complications over time, including diabetic nephropathy (DN).

Practising physicians individualise treatments, hoping to achieve optimal outcomes by tackling relevant patient variables. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is universally accepted as the best means of comparison. Yet doctors sometimes wonder if particular patients might benefit more from treatments that fared worse in the RCT comparisons. Such clinicians may even feel ostracised by their peers for stepping outside treatments based on RCTs and guidelines. Are RCTs the only acceptable evaluations of how patient care can be assessed and delivered?