Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 1212Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 137-139

Study designs: Part 4 – Interventional studies

1 Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication12-Jul-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rakesh Aggarwal
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_91_19

Rights and Permissions

In the fourth piece of this series on research study designs, we look at interventional studies (clinical trials). These studies differ from observational studies in that the investigator decides whether or not a participant will receive the exposure (or intervention). In this article, we describe the key features and types of interventional studies.

Keywords: Experimental design, randomized controlled trial, research design

How to cite this article:
Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 4 – Interventional studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019;10:137-9

How to cite this URL:
Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 4 – Interventional studies. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2023 Feb 8];10:137-9. Available from: http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2019/10/3/137/262659

   Introduction Top

In previous articles in this series, we introduced the concept of study designs[1] and have described in detail the observational study designs – descriptive[2] as well as analytical.[3] In this and another future piece, we will discuss the interventional study designs.

In observational studies, a researcher merely documents the presence of exposure(s) and outcome(s) as they occur, without trying to alter the course of natural events. By contrast, in interventional studies, the researcher actively interferes with nature – by performing an intervention in some or all study participants – to determine the effect of exposure to the intervention on the natural course of events. An example would be a study in which the investigator randomly assigns the participants to receive either aspirin or a placebo for a specific duration to determine whether the drug has an effect on the future risk of developing cerebrovascular events. In this example, aspirin (the “intervention”) is the “exposure,” and the risk of cerebrovascular events is the “outcome.” Interventional studies in humans are also commonly referred to as “trials.”

Interventional studies, by their very design, are prospective. This sometimes leads to confusion between interventional and prospective cohort study designs. For instance, the study design in the above example appears analogous to that of a prospective cohort study in which people attending a wellness clinic are asked whether they take aspirin regularly and then followed for a few years for occurrence of cerebrovascular events. The basic difference is that in the interventional study, it is the investigators who assign each person to take or not to take aspirin, whereas in the cohort study, this is determined by an extraneous factor.

Interventional studies can be divided broadly into two main types: (i) “controlled clinical trials” (or simply “clinical trials” or “trials”), in which individuals are assigned to one of two or more competing interventions, and (ii) “community trials” (or field trials), in which entire groups, e.g., villages, neighbourhoods, schools or districts, are assigned to different interventions.

The interventions can be quite varied; examples include administration of a drug or vaccine or dietary supplement, performance of a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, and introduction of an educational tool. Depending on whether the intervention is aimed at preventing the occurrence of a disease (e.g., administration of a vaccine, boiling of water, distribution of condoms or of an educational pamphlet) or at providing relief to or curing patients with a disease (e.g., antiretroviral drugs in HIV-infected persons), a trial may also be referred to as “preventive trial” or “therapeutic trial”.

   Various Types of Interventional Study Designs Top

Several variations of interventional study designs with varying complexity are possible, and each of these is described below. Of these, the most commonly used and possibly the strongest design is a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Randomized controlled trials

In an RCT, a group of participants fulfilling certain inclusion and exclusion criteria is “randomly” assigned to two separate groups, each receiving a different intervention. Random assignment implies that each participant has an equal chance of being allocated to the two groups.

The use of randomization is a major distinguishing feature and strength of this study design. A well-implemented randomization procedure is expected to result in two groups that are comparable overall, when both measured and unmeasured factors are taken into account. Thus, theoretically, the two groups differ only in the intervention received, and any difference in outcomes between them is thus related to the effect of intervention.

The term “controlled” refers to the presence of a concurrent control or comparator group. These studies have two or more groups – treatment and control. The control group receives no intervention or another intervention that resembles the test intervention in some ways but lacks its activity (e.g., placebo or sham procedure, referred to also as “placebo-controlled” or “sham-controlled” trials) or another active treatment (e.g., the current standard of care). The outcomes are then compared between the intervention and the comparator groups.

If an effort is made to ensure that other factors are similar across groups, then the availability of data from the comparator group allows a stronger inference about the effect of the intervention being tested than is possible in studies that lack a control group.

Some additional methodological features are often added to this study design to further improve the validity of a trial. These include allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, measurement of compliance, minimizing the dropouts, and ensuring appropriate sample size. These will be discussed in the next piece.

Nonrandomized controlled clinical trials

In this design, participants are assigned to different intervention arms without following a “random” procedure. For instance, this may be based on the investigator's convenience or whether the participant can afford a particular drug or not. Although such a design can suggest a possible relationship between the intervention and the outcome, it is susceptible to bias – with patients in the two groups being potentially dissimilar – and hence validity of the results obtained is low.

Interventional studies without concurrent controls

When a new intervention, e.g., a new drug, becomes available, it is possible to a researcher to assign a group of persons to receive it and compare the outcome in them to that in a similar group of persons followed up in the past without this treatment (”historical controls”). This is liable to a high risk of bias, e.g., through differences in the severity of disease or other factors in the two groups or through improvement over time in the available supportive care.

Before–after (pre–post) studies

In this design, a variable of interest is measured before and after an intervention in the same participants. Examples include measurement of glycated hemoglobin of a group of persons before and after administration of a new drug (in a particular dose schedule and at a particular time in relation to it) or number of traffic accident deaths in a city before and after implementation of a policy of mandatory helmet use for two-wheeler drivers.

Such studies have a single arm and lack a comparator arm. The only basis of deriving a conclusion from these studies is the temporal relationship of the measurements to the intervention. However, the outcome can instead be related to other changes that occurred around the same time as the intervention, e.g., change in diet or implementation of alcohol use restrictions, respectively, in the above examples. The change can also represent a natural variation (e.g., diurnal or seasonal) in the variable of interest or a change in the instrument used to measure it. Thus, the outcomes observed in such studies cannot be reliably attributed to the specific intervention, making this a weaker design than RCT.

Some believe that the before-after design is comparable to observational design and that only studies with a “comparator” group, as discussed above, are truly interventional studies.

Factorial study design

If two (or more) interventions are available for a particular disease condition, the relevant question is not only whether each drug is efficacious but also whether a combination of the two is more efficacious than either of them alone.

The simplest factorial design is a 2 × 2 factorial design. Let us think of two interventions: A and B. The participants are randomly allocated to one of four combinations of these interventions – A alone, B alone, both A and B, and neither A nor B (control). This design allows (i) comparison of each intervention with the control group, (ii) comparison of the two interventions with each other, and (iii) investigation of possible interactions between the two treatments (whether the effect of the combination differs from the sum of effects of A and B when given separately). As an example, in a recent study, infants in South India being administered a rotavirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receive a zinc supplement and a probiotic, only probiotic (with zinc placebo), only zinc supplement (with probiotic placebo), or neither (probiotic placebo and zinc placebo).[4] Neither zinc nor probiotic led to any change in the immunogenicity of the vaccine, but the group receiving the zinc-probiotic combination had a modest improvement.

This design allows the study of two interventions in the same trial without unduly increasing the required number of participants, as also the study of interaction between the two treatments.

Crossover study design

This is a special type of interventional study design, in which study participants intentionally “crossover” to the other intervention arm. Each participant first receives one intervention (usually by random allocation, as described above). At the end of this “first” intervention, each participant is switched over to the other intervention. Most often, the two interventions are separated by a washout period to get rid of the effect of the first intervention and to allow each participant to return to the baseline state. For example, in a recent study, obese participants underwent two 5-day inpatient stays – with a 1-month washout period between them, during which they consumed a smoothie containing 48-g walnuts or a macronutrient-matched placebo smoothie without nuts and underwent measurement of several blood analytes, hemodynamics, and gut microbiota.[5]

This design has the advantages of (i) each participant serving as his/her own control, thereby reducing the effect of interindividual variability, and (ii) needing fewer participants than a parallel-arm RCT. However, this design can be used only for disease conditions which are stable and cannot be cured, and where interventions provide only transient relief. For instance, this design would be highly useful for comparing the effect of two anti-inflammatory drugs on symptoms in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis.

Cluster randomized trials

Sometimes, an intervention cannot be easily administered to individuals but can be applied to groups. In such cases, a trial can be done by assigning “clusters” – some logical groups of participants – to receive or not receive the intervention.

As an example, a study in Greece looked at the effect of providing meals in schools on household food security.[6] The 51 schools in this study were randomly allocated to provide or not provide a healthy meal every day to students; schools in both the groups provided an educational intervention.

However, such studies need a somewhat larger sample size than individual-randomized studies and the use of special statistical tools for data analysis.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R. Study designs: Part 1 – An overview and classification. Perspect Clin Res 2018;9:184-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 – Descriptive studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019;10:34-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R. Study designs: Part 3 – Analytical observational studies. Perspect Clin Res 2019;10:91-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Lazarus RP, John J, Shanmugasundaram E, Rajan AK, Thiagarajan S, Giri S, et al. The effect of probiotics and zinc supplementation on the immune response to oral rotavirus vaccine: A randomized, factorial design, placebo-controlled study among Indian infants. Vaccine 2018;36:273-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
Tuccinardi D, Farr OM, Upadhyay J, Oussaada SM, Klapa MI, Candela M, et al. Mechanisms underlying the cardiometabolic protective effect of walnut consumption in obese subjects: A cross-over, randomized, double-blinded, controlled inpatient physiology study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019. [In Press]. doi: 10.1111/dom.13773.  Back to cited text no. 5
Dalma A, Petralias A, Tsiampalis T, Nikolakopoulos S, Veloudaki A, Kastorini CM, et al. Effectiveness of a school food aid programme in improving household food insecurity; a cluster randomized trial. Eur J Public Health 2019. pii: ckz091.  Back to cited text no. 6

This article has been cited by
1 Implementation considerations of deprescribing interventions: A scoping review
Jinjiao Wang, Jenny Y. Shen, Yeates Conwell, Eric J. Podsiadly, Thomas V. Caprio, Kobi Nathan, Fang Yu, Erika E. Ramsdale, Donna M. Fick, Amanda S. Mixon, Sandra F. Simmons
Journal of Internal Medicine. 2023;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Which factors play a role in the decision of mothers to participate in child follow-up examinations after participation in an RCT?: a semi-quantitative study
Tamara den Harink, Annemieke Hoek, Henk Groen, Tessa J Roseboom, Arend van Deutekom
BMJ Open. 2022; 12(8): e057694
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Early Detection of Sepsis Among Adult Inpatients: Scoping Review
Khalia Ackermann, Jannah Baker, Malcolm Green, Mary Fullick, Hilal Varinli, Johanna Westbrook, Ling Li
Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2022; 24(2): e31083
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Early Detection of Sepsis Among Pediatric, Neonatal, and Maternal Inpatients: Scoping Review
Khalia Ackermann, Jannah Baker, Marino Festa, Brendan McMullan, Johanna Westbrook, Ling Li
JMIR Medical Informatics. 2022; 10(5): e35061
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Using a Combined Lean and Person-Centred Approach to Support the Resumption of Routine Hospital Activity following the First Wave of COVID-19
Ailish Daly, Sean Paul Teeling, Suzanne Garvey, Marie Ward, Martin McNamara
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5): 2754
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Part II : Statistics in practice: Study design and application of inferential statistics—Interventional research
David R. Foster, Kevin M. Sowinski
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Effect of passive solar drying on food security in rural Mozambique
Custodio Matavel, Harald Kächele, Jonathan Steinke, Constance Rybak, Harry Hoffmann, João Salavessa, Stefan Sieber, Klaus Müller
Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 The “Next Day” Effects of Cannabis Use: A Systematic Review
Danielle McCartney, Anastasia Suraev, Iain S. McGregor
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Strength and VO2max Changes by Exercise Training According to Maturation State in Children
Liliana Aracely Enríquez-del-Castillo, Andrea Ornelas-López, Lidia G. De León, Natanael Cervantes-Hernández, Estefanía Quintana-Mendias, Luis Alberto Flores
Children. 2022; 9(7): 938
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Web-Based Peer Navigation for Men with Prostate Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: A Pilot Feasibility Study
Jacqueline L. Bender, Parminder K. Flora, Shimae Soheilipour, Mihaela Dirlea, Nandini Maharaj, Lisa Parvin, Andrew Matthew, Charles Catton, Leah Jamnicky, Philip Pollock, Winkle Kwan, Antonio Finelli, Arminée Kazanjian
Current Oncology. 2022; 29(6): 4285
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 How “ age-friendly ” are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials
Jinjiao Wang, Jenny Y. Shen, Yeates Conwell, Eric J. Podsiadly, Thomas V. Caprio, Kobi Nathan, Fang Yu, Erika E. Ramsdale, Donna M. Fick, Amanda S. Mixon, Sandra F. Simmons
Health Services Research. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 The Use of Lean Six Sigma for Improving Availability of and Access to Emergency Department Data to Facilitate Patient Flow
Ailish Daly, Seán Paul Teeling, Marie Ward, Martin McNamara, Ciara Robinson
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21): 11030
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Universal and Selective Interventions to Prevent Poor Mental Health Outcomes in Young People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo,Andrea De Micheli,Marco Solmi,Dominic Oliver,Ana Catalan,Valeria Verdino,Lucia Di Maggio,Ilaria Bonoldi,Joaquim Radua,Ottone Baccaredda Boy,Umberto Provenzani,Francesca Ruzzi,Federica Calorio,Guido Nosari,Benedetto Di Marco,Irene Famularo,Iriana Montealegre,Lorenzo Signorini,Silvia Molteni,Eleonora Filosi,Martina Mensi,Umberto Balottin,Pierluigi Politi,Jae Il Shin,Christoph U. Correll,Celso Arango,Paolo Fusar-Poli
Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2021; 29(3): 196
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Genetic variations in the human immune system influence susceptibility to tegumentary leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Daniele Stéfanie Sara Lopes Lera-Nonose,Larissa Ferreira De Oliveira,Aline Brustolin,Thais Silva Santos,Jully Oyama,Áquila Carolina Fernandes Herculano Ramos-Milaré,Mariana De Souza Terron-Monich,Izabel Galhardo Demarchi,Quirino Alves De Lima Neto,Jorge Juarez Vieira Teixeira,Maria Valdrinez Campana Lonardoni
Expert Review of Clinical Immunology. 2021; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Interventional Study Designs
Neha Thakur, Dheeraj Shah
Indian Pediatrics. 2021; 58(12): 1171
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Effect of didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC)-impregnated washcloth wipe whole-body bathing (WBB) on catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI) and central venous line-associated infections (CLAI) in adult intensive care units (ICUs)
Fabian von Dehn,Nico T. Mutters,Vanessa Eichel,Uta Merle,Thorsten Brenner,Michael Nafe,Anja Sander,Martin Wolkewitz,Uwe Frank
Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Tailoring and evaluating the web-based ‘Partner in Balance’ intervention for family caregivers of persons with young-onset dementia
Jeroen Bruinsma,Kirsten Peetoom,Christian Bakker,Lizzy Boots,Joany Millenaar,Frans Verhey,Marjolein de Vugt
Internet Interventions. 2021; 25: 100390
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Effect of the Intake of Isoflavones on Risk Factors of Breast Cancer—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Intervention Studies
Luisa Finkeldey,Elena Schmitz,Sabine Ellinger
Nutrients. 2021; 13(7): 2309
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Adolescent Self-Efficacy for Diet and Exercise Following a School-Based Multicomponent Lifestyle Intervention
Vasiliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Charmandari, Dimitrios Vlachakis, Artemis Tsitsika, Artur Palasz, George Chrousos, Flora Bacopoulou
Nutrients. 2021; 14(1): 97
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 The Role of Military Training in Improving Psychological Resilience and Reducing Depression Among College Freshmen
Rui Guo,Meng Sun,Chi Zhang,Zebin Fan,Zhening Liu,Haojuan Tao
Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2021; 12
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Use and evaluation of computerized clinical decision support systems for early detection of sepsis in hospitals: protocol for a scoping review (Preprint)
Ling Li,Khalia Ackermann,Jannah Baker,Johanna Westbrook
JMIR Research Protocols. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Study designs: Part 5 – interventional studies (II)
Rakesh Aggarwal,Priya Ranganathan
Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2019; 10(4): 183
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Various Types of...

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded7049    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 22    

Recommend this journal