The phrase "an individual randomized trial" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to research, particularly in discussing the methodology of clinical studies or experiments.
Example: "The results of an individual randomized trial can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the treatment."
Alternatives: "a single randomized trial" or "one randomized trial".
To investigate the trade off between performing an individual randomized trial with a Complier Average Causal Effect analysis and accepting the fact that there will be some contamination, with a cluster randomized trial and the subsequent effect on the sample size and power of the trial.
Therefore, to achieve the same statistical power for an individual randomized trial as would be obtained by a CRT, the number of subjects enrolled in the study should be multiplied by 2.68 and 2.25, respectively for a mean cluster size of 30.
The methodological quality of most of the included studies was average; four studies were grade 1b (individual randomized trial), 10 were grade 2b (individual cohort study), and two were grade 3b (individual case-control study) There is grade 1b and 2b evidence demonstrating the EndoCinch plication is effective in reducing GERD symptoms at short-term follow up.
To avoid contamination between health professionals, and because the intervention targets teams of professionals, a cluster design was deemed more appropriate than an individual randomized controlled trial.
Despite these findings, the clinical value of albumin administration as an adjunct to large-volume paracentesis has been questioned because a survival benefit could not be shown in individual randomized trials.
In individual randomized trials, informed consent is given at once for data collection, randomization and administering the experimental intervention, whereas in CRTs participants have to give separate informed consent for these three elements [ 38].
Individual randomized trials may either by chance or as a result of bias not represent the best possible estimates of an effect of an intervention on PROs.
Then they assessed the studies, giving the highest quality rating to systematic reviews of randomized trials, second rank to individual randomized trials, third to nonrandomized studies, and the lowest ranking to expert opinion and animal studies.
This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials.
Several group sequential methods are available and extensively studied for individual randomized trials, but little is known about the application of these methods in the CRT setting.
When, however, individual randomized trials use different measurement instruments for the same construct, existing methods for combining across studies are plagued by statistical and interpretational limitations.
