Literature DB >> 7595900

Mega-trials: methodological issues and clinical implications.

B G Charlton1.   

Abstract

A recent development of the therapeutic trial has been the mega-trial: a large, simple randomised trial analysed on an 'intention to treat' basis. Mega-trials have advantages in terms of increased statistical power, but also raise several new questions of interpretation. In mega-trials, randomisation serves to achieve identical allocation groups in a situation where there is poor experimental control and a large measure of between-subject variation. The results of mega-trials cannot readily be generalised because their conclusions are observations, not casual hypotheses, and are therefore not testable. In this sense, mega-trials can be repeated but cannot be replicated. Basic science and clinical science both seek understanding at the level of the individual subject; but in a mega-trial, analysis is only meaningful at the group level. The non-scientific nature of mega-trials derives from their methodology, which dispenses with the scientific aim of maximum experimental control to remove or minimise bias, and instead uses randomisation to achieve an equal distribution of bias between groups.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7595900      PMCID: PMC5401292     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond        ISSN: 0035-8819


  10 in total

Review 1.  Epidemiologic analyses of causation: the unlearned scientific lessons of randomized trials.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Endocrine physiology and the value of case studies.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J Endocrinol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 4.286

3.  Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials.

Authors:  D Schwartz; J Lellouch
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1967-08

4.  Understanding randomized controlled trials: explanatory or pragmatic?

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Practice guidelines and practical judgement: the role of mega-trials, meta-analysis and consensus.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 7.  Dissent in science: styles of scientific practice and the controversy over the cause of AIDS.

Authors:  J H Fujimura; D Y Chou
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  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

9.  Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-08-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  A look at the statistical overview (or meta-analysis)

Authors:  R R West
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1993-04
  10 in total
  7 in total

1.  Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology.

Authors:  Bruce G Charlton
Journal:  Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Megatrials are based on a methodological mistake.

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

3.  Evidence based medicine. No guidance is provided for situations for which evidence is lacking.

Authors:  G W Jones; S M Sagar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22

4.  Evidence based medicine. Megatrials are subordinate to medical science.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-07-22

Review 5.  Causation: the elusive grail of epidemiology.

Authors:  L R Karhausen
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2000

Review 6.  A critique of Geoffrey Rose's 'population strategy' for preventive medicine.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 18.000

7.  Statistical malpractice.

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.