PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10726810

Methods for improving clinical trials.

Abstract

Over the past decades, the randomized controlled trial has entered an era of continuous improvement and has gradually become accepted as the most effective way of determining the relative efficacy and toxicity of new therapies because it controls for placebo and time effects. However, even sensitive and properly designed and executed trials do not always confirm hypotheses to be tested, and conclusions are not always confirmed by subsequent trials. Although the former may be due to wrong hypotheses, the latter is likely to be due to the presence of certain imperfections within the design and execution of the trial itself. In this opinion paper, while focusing on such imperfections, the author searched for methods for further improvement of controlled trials, particularly clinical trials. The examples used in this paper are obtained from literature search as well as recent studies performed by the Netherlands Working Group on Cardiovascular Research (WCN). Methods for improvement could include: 1. making every effort to avoid asymmetries in the treatment groups; 2. emphasis on statistical power rather than just null-hypothesis testing; 3. adjusting for asymmetries not only of patient characteristics but also of outcome variables; 4. accounting routinely for type III errors; 5. routinely weighing benefits of a new drug against risks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T J Cleophas. Methods for improving clinical trials.. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.1999.152

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparing results of large clinical trials to those of meta-analyses.

We consider methods for assessing agreement or disagreement between the results of a meta-analysis of small studies addressing a clinical question and the result of a large clinical trial (LCT) addressing the same clinical question. We recommend basing conclusions about agreement upon the difference between the two results (relative risk, log-odds ratio or similar summary statistic), in the light of the estimated standard error of that difference. To estimate the standard error of the meta-analytic result we recommend a random effects analysis, and where a between-studies variance component is found, that component of variance should be used twice: once in the estimated standard error for the meta-analytic result and again in the standard error of the LCT result (augmenting the internal standard error of that statistic). Such broadening of the standard error reduces the appearance of disagreement. We also offer a critique of a different published approach, which is based on consistency of findings of statistical significance, a matter of how the two results regard zero, which is a poor measure of how closely they agree with each other.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗