Literature DB >> 23733987

Decline in placebo-controlled trial results suggests new directions for comparative effectiveness research.

Mark Olfson1, Steven C Marcus.   

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act offers strong support for comparative effectiveness research, which entails comparisons among active treatments, to provide the foundation for evidence-based practice. Traditionally, a key form of research into the effectiveness of therapeutic treatments has been placebo-controlled trials, in which a specified treatment is compared to placebo. These trials feature high-contrast comparisons between treatments. Historical trends in placebo-controlled trials have been evaluated to help guide the comparative effectiveness research agenda. We investigated placebo-controlled trials reported in four leading medical journals between 1966 and 2010. We found that there was a significant decline in average effect size or average difference in efficacy (the ability to produce a desired effect) between the active treatment and placebo. On average, recently studied treatments offered only small benefits in efficacy over placebo. A decline in effect sizes in conventional placebo-controlled trials supports an increased emphasis on other avenues of research, including comparative studies on the safety, tolerability, and cost of treatments with established efficacy.

Keywords:  Evidence-Based Medicine; Health Reform; Research And Technology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23733987     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  8 in total

1.  Making individualized drugs a reality.

Authors:  Huub Schellekens; Mohammed Aldosari; Herre Talsma; Enrico Mastrobattista
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  The placebo effect in asthma.

Authors:  Stefanie Dutile; Ted J Kaptchuk; Michael E Wechsler
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.806

3.  When Will Presidential Candidates Ask, "What Do Women Want in Health Care?".

Authors:  Diana Zuckerman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Generalizability of Clinical Trial Results for Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder.

Authors:  Carlos Blanco; Nicolas Hoertel; Silvia Franco; Mark Olfson; Jian-Ping He; Saioa López; Ana González-Pinto; Frédéric Limosin; Kathleen R Merikangas
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Innovating aging: promises and pitfalls on the road to life extension.

Authors:  Jan Vijg; Aubrey D N J de Grey
Journal:  Gerontology       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 5.140

Review 6.  Directions for Effectiveness Research to Improve Health Services for Late-Life Depression in the United States.

Authors:  Theresa J Hoeft; Ladson Hinton; Jessica Liu; Jürgen Unützer
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 4.105

Review 7.  Mapping the characteristics of network meta-analyses on drug therapy: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fernanda S Tonin; Laiza M Steimbach; Antonio M Mendes; Helena H Borba; Roberto Pontarolo; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture.

Authors:  Thomas F Monaghan; Christina W Agudelo; Syed N Rahman; Alan J Wein; Jason M Lazar; Karel Everaert; Roger R Dmochowski
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.