Pocock, SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester: Wiley; 1983.Google Scholar

Sacks, H, Chalmers, TC, Smith, H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982;72:233–40.Google Scholar

El-Refaey, H, Rajasekar, D, Abdalla, M, Calder, L, Templeton, A. Induction of abortion with Mifepristone (RU 486) and oral or vaginal Misoprostol. N Engl J Med 1995;332:983–7.Google Scholar

Goodwin, TM, Valenzuela, GJ, Silva, H, Creasy, G. Dose ranging study of the oxytocin antagonist atosiban in the treatment of preterm labour. Atosiban Study Group. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:331–6.Google Scholar

Collaborative Eclampsia Trial Group. Which anti-convulsant for women with eclampsia: Evidence from the Collaborative Eclampsia Trial. Lancet 1995;345:1455–63.Google Scholar

The Future II Study Group. Quadrivalent Vaccine against Human Papillomavirus to prevent High Grade Cervical Lesions. N Eng J Med 2007;356:1915–27Google Scholar

CLASP Collaborative Group. Low dose aspirin in pregnancy and early childhood development follow-up of the collaborative low dose aspirin study in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;102:861–8.Google Scholar

Hannah, ME, Whyte, H, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, S, Amankwah, K, Cheng, M, et al. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917–27.Google Scholar

Whyte, H, Hannah, ME, Saigal, S, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, S, Amankwah, K, et al. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned caesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:864–71.Google Scholar

Norman, J, Mackenzie, F, Owen, P, Mactier, H, Cooper, S, Calder, A, et al. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy (STOPPIT): a randomized double blind placebo controlled study and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373:2034–40.Google Scholar

Roland, M, Torgerson, DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? BMJ 1998;316:285.Google Scholar

Goverde, AJ, McDonnell, J, Vermeiden, JPW, Schats, R, Rutten, FFH, Schoemaker, J. Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomized trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2000;355:3–18.Google Scholar

Matonhodze, BB, Hofmeyr, GJ, Levin, J. Labour induction at term – a randomized trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol alone, and dinoprostone. S Afr Med J 2003;93:375–9.Google Scholar

McAlister, FA, Strauss, SE, Sackett, DL, Altman, DG. Analysis and reporting of factorial trials. JAMA 2003;289:2545–53.Google Scholar

Fender, GRK, Prentice, A, Gorst, T, Nixon, RM, Duffy, SW, Day, NE, et al. Randomized controlled trial of educational package on management of menorrhagia in primary care: The Anglia menorrhagia education study. BMJ 1999;318:1246–50.Google Scholar

Morrison, J, Carroll, L, Twaddle, S, Cameron, I, Grimshaw, J, Leyland, A, et al. Pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate guidelines for the management of infertility across the primary care–secondary care interface. BMJ 2001;322:1–7.Google Scholar

Kerry, SM, Bland, JM. The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ 1998;316 (7142):1455.Google Scholar

Torgerson, D, Sibbald, B. Understanding clinical trials: What is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998;316 (7128):360.Google Scholar

Brocklehurst, P. Partially randomized patient preference trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1332–5.Google Scholar

Cooper, KG, Parkin, DE, Garret, AM, Grant, AM. A randomized comparison of medical and hysteroscopic management in women consulting a gynaecologist for treatment of heavy menstrual loss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1360–6.Google Scholar

Piaggio, G, Pinol, APY. Use of the equivalence approach in reproductive health clinical trials. Stat Med 2001;20:3571–87.Google Scholar

Jones, B, Jarvis, P, Lewis, JA, Ebbutt, AF. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996;313:36–9.Google Scholar

Lilford, RJ, Thornton, JG, Braunholtz, D. Clinical trials and rare diseases: A way out of a conundrum. BMJ 1995;311:1621–5.Google Scholar

Roland, M, Torgerson, DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what outcomes should be measured? BMJ 1998;317:1075–80.Google Scholar

Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605–13.Google Scholar

Patrick, DL, Bergner, M. Measurement of health status in the 1990s. Annu Rev Public Health 1990;11:165–83.Google Scholar

Fayers, PM, Sprangers, MA. Understanding self-rated health. Lancet 2002;359:187–8.Google Scholar

Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The, MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.Google Scholar

Guyatt, GH, Bombardier, C, Tugwell, PX. Measuring disease specific quality of life in clinical trials. Can Med Assoc J 1986;134:889–95.Google Scholar

Kelleher, CJ, Cardozo, LD, Khullar, V, Salvatore, S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1374–9.Google Scholar

Endicott, J, Nee, J, Harrison, W. Daily record of severity of problems (DRSP): Reliability and validity. Archives of Womens Ment Health 2006;9(1):41.Google Scholar

Kennedy, S, Barnard, A, Wong, J, Jenkinson, C. Development of an endometriosis quality-of-life instrument: The Endometriosis Health Profile-30. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:258–64.Google Scholar

Schneider, HP, Heinemann, LA, Rosemeier, HP, Potthoff, P, Behre, HM. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): Comparison with Kupperman index and quality-of-life scale SF-36. Climacteric 2000;3:50–8.Google Scholar

Williams, B. Patient satisfaction: A valid concept? Soc Sci Med 1994;38:509–16.Google Scholar

Sitzia, J, Wood, N. Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1829–43.Google Scholar

Bury, M. Doctors, Patients and Interactions in Health Care. In: Bury, M, editor. Health and Illness in a Changing Society. London: Routledge; 1997. p. 77–109.Google Scholar

Williams, B, Coyle, J, Healy, D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: An explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1351–9.Google Scholar

Drummond, MF, Davies, L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991;7:561–73.Google Scholar

Altman, DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.Google Scholar

Ashok, PW, Kidd, A, Flett, GM, Fitzmaurice, A, Graham, W, Templeton, A. A randomized comparison of medical abortion and surgical vacuum aspiration at 10–13 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2002;17:92–8.Google Scholar

Vail, A, Gardner, E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1000–4.Google Scholar

Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomized trials: chance not choice. Lancet 2002;359:515–19.Google Scholar

Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, RJ, Altman, DG. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12.Google Scholar

Moher, D, Pham, B, Jones, A, Cook, DJ, Jadad, AR, Moher, M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis. Lancet 1998;352:609–13.Google Scholar

Juni, P, Altman, D, Egger, M. Assessing quality of controlled trials. BMJ 2001;323:42–6.Google Scholar

Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA, Altman, DG, Hayes, RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomized controlled trials: Survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 1996;312:742–7.Google Scholar

Schulz, KF, Grimes, DA. Sample size slippages in randomized trials: Exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002;359:781–5.Google Scholar

Moher, D, Schultz, KF, Altman, DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–4.Google Scholar

Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament & of the Council of 4th April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the relating member states to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities L121; 34–44.Google Scholar