Michael J Hayes1, Victoria Kaestner1, Sham Mailankody1, Vinay Prasad1. 1. Affiliations: Division of Internal Medicine (Hayes); Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology (Kaestner, Prasad), Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Ore.; Division of Myeloma (Mailankody), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health (Prasad); Center for Health Care Ethics (Prasad), Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Ore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a 2003 paper in BMJ, the authors made the tongue-in-cheek observation that there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parachutes. This paper has been widely read, cited and used to argue that RCTs are impractical or unnecessary for some medical practices. We performed a study to identify and evaluate claims that a medical practice is akin to a parachute. METHODS: Using Google Scholar, we identified all citations to the 2003 paper. We searched for claims that a specific practice was akin to a parachute. For each practice, we identified the desired outcome of the practice, and searched Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs that were conducted, ongoing, halted, planned or unpublished. RESULTS: Of 822 articles citing the original paper, 35 (4.1%) argued that a medical practice was akin to a parachute. Eighteen of the 35 (51%) concerned mortality or live birth, and 17 (49%) concerned a lesser outcome. For 22 practices (63%), we identified 1 or more RCTs: in 6 cases (27%), the trials showed a statistically significant benefit of the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials rejected the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials had mixed results; in 2 (9%), the trials were halted; and in 4 (18%), the trials were ongoing. Effect size was calculated for 5 of the 6 practices for which RCTs gave positive results, and the absolute risk reduction ranged from 11% to 30.8%, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 3-9. INTERPRETATION: Although there is widespread interest regarding the BMJ paper arguing that randomized trials are not necessary for practices of clear benefit, there are few analogies in medicine. Most parachute analogies in medicine are inappropriate, incorrect or misused. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: In a 2003 paper in BMJ, the authors made the tongue-in-cheek observation that there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parachutes. This paper has been widely read, cited and used to argue that RCTs are impractical or unnecessary for some medical practices. We performed a study to identify and evaluate claims that a medical practice is akin to a parachute. METHODS: Using Google Scholar, we identified all citations to the 2003 paper. We searched for claims that a specific practice was akin to a parachute. For each practice, we identified the desired outcome of the practice, and searched Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs that were conducted, ongoing, halted, planned or unpublished. RESULTS: Of 822 articles citing the original paper, 35 (4.1%) argued that a medical practice was akin to a parachute. Eighteen of the 35 (51%) concerned mortality or live birth, and 17 (49%) concerned a lesser outcome. For 22 practices (63%), we identified 1 or more RCTs: in 6 cases (27%), the trials showed a statistically significant benefit of the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials rejected the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials had mixed results; in 2 (9%), the trials were halted; and in 4 (18%), the trials were ongoing. Effect size was calculated for 5 of the 6 practices for which RCTs gave positive results, and the absolute risk reduction ranged from 11% to 30.8%, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 3-9. INTERPRETATION: Although there is widespread interest regarding the BMJ paper arguing that randomized trials are not necessary for practices of clear benefit, there are few analogies in medicine. Most parachute analogies in medicine are inappropriate, incorrect or misused. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: H I Friedman; H I F Friedman; M Fitzmaurice; J F Lefaivre; T Vecchiolla; D Clarke Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Antonio Montresor; David Addiss; Marco Albonico; Said Mohammed Ali; Steven K Ault; Albis-Francesco Gabrielli; Amadou Garba; Elkhan Gasimov; Theresa Gyorkos; Mohamed Ahmed Jamsheed; Bruno Levecke; Pamela Mbabazi; Denise Mupfasoni; Lorenzo Savioli; Jozef Vercruysse; Aya Yajima Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2015-10-22
Authors: Mohammad O Sharif; Melanie Catleugh; Alison Merry; Martin Tickle; Stephen M Dunne; Paul Brunton; Vishal R Aggarwal; Lee Yee Chong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-02-08
Authors: Andrew W Brown; Stella Aslibekyan; Dennis Bier; Rafael Ferreira da Silva; Adam Hoover; David M Klurfeld; Eric Loken; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Nir Menachemi; Greg Pavela; Dale Schoeller; Colby J Vorland; Leah D Whigham; David B Allison Journal: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 11.208
Authors: Kevin Escandón; Angela L Rasmussen; Isaac I Bogoch; Eleanor J Murray; Karina Escandón; Saskia V Popescu; Jason Kindrachuk Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Robert W Yeh; Linda R Valsdottir; Michael W Yeh; Changyu Shen; Daniel B Kramer; Jordan B Strom; Eric A Secemsky; Joanne L Healy; Robert M Domeier; Dhruv S Kazi; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-12-13