Research history

Current published edition

Randomized controlled trials

As recorded by . This is a dated public record of drafts, changes, sources and review declarations. A page, checksum or merged pull request does not establish a scientific result or independent review.

Edition
edition:2026-11-07-encyclopedia
Edition checksum
e146b1666792c4b20504af099ca65663d0f70fea584397f38cb5eda241137bde
Projection checksum
a017dac8fb17a969a8d72ae660365d8c9a3840125e29cb258e797f50a27552ed
Period
inclusive to exclusive.
Starting baseline
Unknown before the recorded capture. Present states are not backdated to January.

JSON retains the complete pinned edition. CSV covers every recorded event in this edition; view filters do not change either download.

Recorded activity and qualification

  • 69Stable records
  • 71Subject versions
  • 69Recorded events
  • 0Review declarations
  • 0Subjects with qualifying source review
  • 0Peer-reviewed manuscripts
  • 0Qualifying research results
  • 1Editorial correction artifacts
  • 2Changed claim subjects
  • 23Open problems
  • 0Partially resolved problems
  • 0Solved problems
  • 0Problems under review
  • 0Unresolved challenges

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself. Editorial corrections, proposed methods and software checks are separate from qualifying research results.

Coverage and limits

66 source entries are covered by this edition. Claim-level records cover only their selected wording and context; they do not qualify a whole manuscript. Source-derived case labels describe the published summaries, not Charitology fieldwork or charity ratings.

Entry links open the present site. The separate pinned source text retains this edition’s exact archived bytes.

Randomized controlled trials · Encyclopedia entry · version 1
Source review: draft

concept:randomized-controlled-trials

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself.

Versions and exact subjects

Version entries 1–1

Version 1: Randomized controlled trials

Current subject in this edition

Subject checksum
d6fdc38227c624e96c38e676691488ab366ba65b4ebd5ac2705fa1dc846fdf0f
Version checksum
40be57fbec79d5453394451a9b82f32704e1349fc5ef5608a83b5325ace5c7e1
Authorship declaration
unknown; completeness unknown.
aliases
[
  "RCTs",
  "randomized evaluations",
  "field experiments"
]
conditions
[
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "measurement-gap"
  }
]
related
[
  "/record/encyclopedia/counterfactual-impact/",
  "/record/principles/04-evidence-and-its-grades/",
  "/programs/evidence-reviews/",
  "/programs/replication-program/",
  "/open-problems/the-replication-rate/"
]
summary
Experiments that assign people or communities to a program or to a comparison group by chance, so that differences in outcomes can be credited to the program. They reshaped development economics, and their limits are still debated.
Exact archived Markdown body

Inert source text, including its original formatting. It is not executed as page markup.

A **randomized controlled trial** (RCT) assigns people, villages or schools to receive a program or not by chance, like a coin flip. Because chance decides, the groups are expected to be alike in everything except the program. The difference in their outcomes then estimates the program’s effect. A trial is a way of seeing the [counterfactual](/record/encyclopedia/counterfactual-impact/): what would have happened without the program.

## In development economics

In 2019 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT and Michael Kremer of Harvard “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.” The Academy said they split poverty into smaller, more precise questions, often best answered by carefully designed experiments among the people most affected. It credited one of their studies with leading to remedial tutoring programs that have reached more than five million children in India. J-PAL, the research center Banerjee and Duflo founded at MIT in 2003 with Sendhil Mullainathan, says its network has led more than 2,700 randomized evaluations.

## What trials can show

Trials can confirm that something works and show how much. A Cochrane review of five trials with about 200,000 participants found that insecticide-treated nets cut child deaths from all causes by about 17 percent, and rated that evidence high-certainty.

They can also show that something does harm. A Cochrane review of nine trials of “Scared Straight” programs found that they increased offending compared with doing nothing.

## The critique

Angus Deaton and Nancy Cartwright argue that the public, and sometimes researchers, put too much trust in RCTs compared with other methods. Randomization does not guarantee that the groups in any one trial are equal in everything but the treatment. At best a trial gives an unbiased estimate, which they say is of limited practical value on its own. Its result applies to the people in the trial, and carrying it to a new place or population needs a further argument about why the program worked. They see trials as useful inside a cumulative program of research that combines them with other methods.

## Where trials stop

Many of the questions Charitology cares most about cannot be randomized. Some national laws and cultural changes cannot feasibly be assigned at random, though policy rollout or components can sometimes be randomized. Charitology hypothesizes that limits on trial evidence can affect funding for structure and [source](/record/encyclopedia/source-depth/) work. Finding other ways to measure it is [Open Problem 3](/open-problems/measuring-the-source/). How often trial findings hold up when repeated is [Open Problem 10](/open-problems/the-replication-rate/).
Cited evidence
Pinned source capture
Exact version fields and declaration references
{
  "adapterVersion": "research-encyclopedia-v1",
  "authorship": {
    "actorIds": [],
    "complete": false,
    "refs": [],
    "state": "unknown"
  },
  "hash": "40be57fbec79d5453394451a9b82f32704e1349fc5ef5608a83b5325ace5c7e1",
  "id": "version:concept-randomized-controlled-trials-v1",
  "previousId": null,
  "recordId": "concept:randomized-controlled-trials",
  "sources": [
    {
      "selector": {
        "kind": "entry"
      },
      "sourceId": "source:encyclopedia-randomized-controlled-trials-v1"
    }
  ],
  "subject": {
    "body": "\nA **randomized controlled trial** (RCT) assigns people, villages or schools to receive a program or not by chance, like a coin flip. Because chance decides, the groups are expected to be alike in everything except the program. The difference in their outcomes then estimates the program’s effect. A trial is a way of seeing the [counterfactual](/record/encyclopedia/counterfactual-impact/): what would have happened without the program.\n\n## In development economics\n\nIn 2019 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT and Michael Kremer of Harvard “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.” The Academy said they split poverty into smaller, more precise questions, often best answered by carefully designed experiments among the people most affected. It credited one of their studies with leading to remedial tutoring programs that have reached more than five million children in India. J-PAL, the research center Banerjee and Duflo founded at MIT in 2003 with Sendhil Mullainathan, says its network has led more than 2,700 randomized evaluations.\n\n## What trials can show\n\nTrials can confirm that something works and show how much. A Cochrane review of five trials with about 200,000 participants found that insecticide-treated nets cut child deaths from all causes by about 17 percent, and rated that evidence high-certainty.\n\nThey can also show that something does harm. A Cochrane review of nine trials of “Scared Straight” programs found that they increased offending compared with doing nothing.\n\n## The critique\n\nAngus Deaton and Nancy Cartwright argue that the public, and sometimes researchers, put too much trust in RCTs compared with other methods. Randomization does not guarantee that the groups in any one trial are equal in everything but the treatment. At best a trial gives an unbiased estimate, which they say is of limited practical value on its own. Its result applies to the people in the trial, and carrying it to a new place or population needs a further argument about why the program worked. They see trials as useful inside a cumulative program of research that combines them with other methods.\n\n## Where trials stop\n\nMany of the questions Charitology cares most about cannot be randomized. Some national laws and cultural changes cannot feasibly be assigned at random, though policy rollout or components can sometimes be randomized. Charitology hypothesizes that limits on trial evidence can affect funding for structure and [source](/record/encyclopedia/source-depth/) work. Finding other ways to measure it is [Open Problem 3](/open-problems/measuring-the-source/). How often trial findings hold up when repeated is [Open Problem 10](/open-problems/the-replication-rate/).\n",
    "collection": "encyclopedia",
    "frontmatter": {
      "aliases": [
        "RCTs",
        "randomized evaluations",
        "field experiments"
      ],
      "conditions": [
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "measurement-gap"
        }
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/encyclopedia/counterfactual-impact/",
        "/record/principles/04-evidence-and-its-grades/",
        "/programs/evidence-reviews/",
        "/programs/replication-program/",
        "/open-problems/the-replication-rate/"
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences",
          "title": "The Prize in Economic Sciences 2019",
          "url": "https://www.kva.se/en/news/ekonomipriset-2019-2/",
          "year": 2019
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)",
          "title": "About us",
          "url": "https://www.povertyactionlab.org/about-us",
          "year": null
        },
        {
          "note": "Freely readable at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019115/",
          "publisher": "Angus Deaton and Nancy Cartwright, Social Science & Medicine 210",
          "title": "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials",
          "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005",
          "year": 2018
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Joseph Pryce, Marty Richardson and Christian Lengeler, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
          "title": "Insecticide-treated nets for preventing malaria (Cochrane systematic review)",
          "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6418392/",
          "year": 2018
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Anthony Petrosino and colleagues, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
          "title": "“Scared Straight” and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency",
          "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD002796_scared-straight-and-other-juvenile-awareness-programs-preventing-juvenile-delinquency",
          "year": 2022
        }
      ],
      "summary": "Experiments that assign people or communities to a program or to a comparison group by chance, so that differences in outcomes can be credited to the program. They reshaped development economics, and their limits are still debated.",
      "title": "Randomized controlled trials"
    },
    "type": "entry"
  },
  "subjectHash": "d6fdc38227c624e96c38e676691488ab366ba65b4ebd5ac2705fa1dc846fdf0f",
  "version": 1
}

Timeline in recorded order

Public occurrence time and ledger recording time are different. A coverage baseline records what was present at capture; it does not invent an earlier history.

Events 1–1

Coverage baseline

Recorded order
62; sequence 1 for this record.
Public occurrence
Undated / no earlier occurrence asserted · undated
Recorded in ledger

Additional exact-source encyclopedia coverage. Earlier authorship, source reading, independent review and historical event dates remain unknown.

Observed baseline: version 1.

Exact event fields
{
  "actorIds": [],
  "hash": "862733d245e6bf19ee1bbb548002779739a0b3e06ae91e15e9ec8018c3669170",
  "id": "event:concept-randomized-controlled-trials-1",
  "initialProblemState": null,
  "observationIds": [],
  "occurredAt": null,
  "ordinal": 62,
  "previousHash": null,
  "previousId": null,
  "reason": "Additional exact-source encyclopedia coverage. Earlier authorship, source reading, independent review and historical event dates remain unknown.",
  "recordId": "concept:randomized-controlled-trials",
  "recordedAt": "2026-11-07T23:20:18.679Z",
  "refs": [],
  "sequence": 1,
  "timeBasis": "undated",
  "type": "baseline",
  "version": {
    "recordId": "concept:randomized-controlled-trials",
    "subjectHash": "d6fdc38227c624e96c38e676691488ab366ba65b4ebd5ac2705fa1dc846fdf0f",
    "version": 1
  }
}

Review declarations

No public review declaration is recorded for this subject in this edition.

Dated public metadata observations

These observations record only the displayed metadata at inspection. A merge, closed issue or empty review list does not establish research or independent review.

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "975bbbbbd198d4b3c4e1777013d0410588a838b3",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "3653d41717a86db2933b02664d7026a329350a66",
  "mergeCommit": "8df2d0ddbc6d91b9841c6bbb94dbde1fc7c00137",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-27T08:10:57.000Z",
  "number": 15,
  "state": "closed"
}

be39e645f9291ea3931584665b011df77bfa8340e4d32f36562eb526f8e62396

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "905bdd27bb5f16027c3b3ad3c0f5ee3fc18e3e45",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "510320528e89f45caa9c42eb5a6eda3d6ad1bede",
  "mergeCommit": "3a57d24acc6efd4eb3ae60c59da36ea17c023fb9",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-26T05:24:43.000Z",
  "number": 3,
  "state": "closed"
}

1ec26b57bd6ef466311b11958d47e9d144ec150ea5689838ae8036eb363aacbf

github-review-list · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "prNumber": 3,
  "reviewIds": []
}

3b7b719dbdd25b9937ba6c640f7234921611db30818b5675db41b9fa3534d926

github-issue · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "commentCount": 0,
  "number": 1,
  "state": "open"
}

b411d756f95b7434bc8a2a73dd5599f751afe621b2ab673c0e2e7b056d37bb14

Corrections stay public

This ledger reads checked-in public evidence. It does not read private browser registers, publish a local result, assign reviewers or rate charities. New evidence and corrections enter through the repository’s public contribution process.

How to contribute or challenge a claim