Literature DB >> 11806765

Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology.

Bruce G Charlton1.   

Abstract

The fundamental methodological deficiency of megatrials is deliberate reduction of experimental control in order to maximize recruitment and compliance of subjects. Hence, typical megatrials recruit pathologically and prognostically heterogeneous subjects, and protocols typically fail to exclude significant confounders. Therefore, most megatrials do not test a scientific hypothesis, nor are they informative about individual patients. The proper function of a megatrial is precise measurement of effect size for a therapeutic intervention. Valid megatrials can be designed only when simplification can be achieved without significantly affecting experimental control. Megatrials should be conducted only at the end of a long process of therapeutic development, and must always be designed and interpreted in the context of relevant scientific and clinical information.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 11806765      PMCID: PMC59645          DOI: 10.1186/cvm-2-1-002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med        ISSN: 1468-6694


  15 in total

1.  Clinical research methods for the new millenium.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Individual case studies in clinical research.

Authors:  B G Charlton; F Walston
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 3.  Megatrials are based on a methodological mistake.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  The uses and abuses of meta-analysis.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  The future of clinical research: from megatrials towards methodological rigour and representative sampling.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 6.  Evidence-based medicine, practice variations and clinical freedom.

Authors:  J R Hampton
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Can treatment that is helpful on average be harmful to some patients? A study of the conflicting information needs of clinical inquiry and drug regulation.

Authors:  R I Horwitz; B H Singer; R W Makuch; C M Viscoli
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Meta-analysis: reconciling the results of independent studies.

Authors:  I Olkin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995 Mar 15-Apr 15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Trials and tribulations.

Authors:  D Julian
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 10.787

10.  Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials?

Authors:  S Yusuf; R Collins; R Peto
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1984 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  7 in total

1.  The best type of trial.

Authors:  Michal R Pijak; Frantisek Gazdik; Stefan Hrusovsky
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-06-08       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Participants in research: routine extrapolation of randomised controlled trials is absurd.

Authors:  Bruce G Charlton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-07-09

Review 3.  [Evidence-based trauma and orthopedic surgery : 20 years after Sackett].

Authors:  D Stengel; S Kirschner; A Ekkernkamp; C Bartl
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 4.  A landmark for popperian epidemiology: refutation of the randomised Aldactone evaluation study.

Authors:  Elard Koch; Alvaro Otarola; Aida Kirschbaum
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  The Framingham study and treatment guidelines for stroke prevention.

Authors:  Enzo Grossi
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2008-06

6.  Are there fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology?

Authors:  Desmond Julian; Curt Furberg
Journal:  Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2001

7.  The importance of small samples in medical research.

Authors:  A Indrayan; A Mishra
Journal:  J Postgrad Med       Date:  2021 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.476

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.