Effective clinical practice is predicated on valid and relevant clinical science — a commodity in increasingly short supply.
The pre-eminent place of clinical research has become tainted by methodological shortcomings, commercial influences and neglect of the needs of patients and clinicians.
Researchers need to be more proactive in evaluating clinical interventions in terms of patient-important benefit, wide applicability and comparative effectiveness, and in adopting study designs and reporting standards that ensure accurate and transparent research outputs.
Funders of research need to be more supportive of applied clinical research that rigorously evaluates effectiveness of new treatments and synthesises existing knowledge into clinically useful systematic reviews.
Several strategies for improving the state of the science are possible but their implementation requires collective action of all those undertaking and reporting clinical research.
- 1. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2009.
- 2. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM. Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Evidence-based Medicine. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.
- 3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Putting guidance into practice. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/ (accessed Nov 2011).
- 4. Jelinek GA, Neate SL. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine. J Law Med 2009; 17: 216-223.
- 5. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000; 355: 2037-2040.
- 6. Mitchell RJ, McClure RJ, Olivier J, Watson WL. Rational allocation of Australia’s research dollars: does the distribution of NHMRC funding by National Health Priority Area reflect actual disease burden? Med J Aust 2009; 191: 648-652. <MJA full text>
- 7. Glasziou PP. Promoting evidence-based non-drug interventions: time for a non-pharmacopoeia? Med J Aust 2009; 191: 52-53. <MJA full text>
- 8. Sharpe N. Clinical trials and the real world: selection bias and the generalisability of trial results. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2002; 16: 75-77.
- 9. Abernethy AP, Raman G, Balk EM, et al. Systematic review: reliability of compendia methods for off-label oncology indications. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 336-343.
- 10. Scott IA. Non-inferiority trials — determining when alternative treatments are good enough. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 326-330. <MJA full text>
- 11. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA 2009; 302: 2679-2685.
- 12. Fenton M, Leitch A, Grindlay D. Developing a UK DUETs module 2009. www.lindalliance.org/pdfs/UK_DUETs/DEVELOPING_A_UK_DUETs%20_MODULE_2009.pdf (accessed Feb 2011).
- 13. Dear RF, Barratt AL, McGeechan K, et al. Landscape of cancer clinical trials in Australia: using trial registries to guide future research. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 387-391. <MJA full text>
- 14. National Institute for Health Research. Transforming health research: the first two years. Progress report 2006–2008. London: NIHR, 2008. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/files/pdfs/NIHR%20Progress%20Report%202006-2008.pdf (accessed Nov 2011).
- 15. Department of Health and Human Services. Text of the Recovery Act related to comparative effectiveness funding. Excerpt from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009. March 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/recoveryacttext.html(accessed Mar 2011).
- 16. Garattini S, Chalmers I. Patients and the public deserve big changes in evaluation of drugs. BMJ 2009; 338: b1025.
- 17. Glasziou PP. Support for trials of promising medications through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A proposal for a new authority category. Med J Aust 1995; 162: 33-36.
- 18. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-1632.
- 19. Yusuf S. Damage to important clinical trials by over-regulation. Clin Trials 2010; 7: 622-625.
- 20. Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ 2010; 340: c1066.
- 21. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 206-209.
- 22. Merkow RP, Ko CY. Evidence-based medicine in surgery. The importance of both experimental and observational study designs. JAMA 2011; 306: 436-437.
- 23. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and knee arthroplasty. Annual report 2010. Adelaide: AOA, 2010. http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrrreport_2010.pdf (accessed Jul 2011).
- 24. Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Donald A. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 983-991.
- 25. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 50-55.
- 26. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86-89.
- 27. Scott IA, Greenberg PB; IMSANZ EBM Working Group. Cautionary tales in the clinical interpretation of therapy trial reports. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 611-621.
- 28. Groenwold RH, Van Deursen AM, Hoes AW, Hak E. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol 2008; 18: 746-751.
- 29. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA 2007; 298: 2517-2526.
- 30. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008; 101: 507-514.
- 31. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 2010; 5: e10072.
- 32. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, et al. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1934-1939.
- 33. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336: 1472-1474.
- 34. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, et al. Quality assessment of reviewers’ reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 979-985.
- 35. Cobo E, Selva-O’Callagham A, Ribera JM, et al. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2007; 2: e332.
- 36. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Altman DG, et al. Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. BMJ 2010; 341: c3852.
- 37. Hlatky MA, Owens DK, Sanders GD. Cost-effectiveness as an outcome in randomized clinical trials. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 543-551.
- 38. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals? BMC Med 2004; 2: 33-45.
- 39. Kent DM, Trikalinos TA. Therapeutic innovations, diminishing returns, and control rate preservation. JAMA 2009; 302: 2254-2256.
- 40. Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Franco AL, Guyatt G, Moynihan R. Drugs for pre-osteoporosis: prevention or disease mongering? BMJ 2008; 336: 126-129.
- 41. Wurtman RJ, Bettiker RL. The slowing of treatment discovery, 1965–1995. Nat Med 1995; 1: 1122-1125.
- 42. Hopewell S, Clarke MJ, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2): MR000011.
- 43. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252-260.
- 44. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Lost in transmission — FDA drug information that never reaches clinicians. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1717-1720.
- 45. US Food and Drug Administration. Law strengthens FDA. 2007. www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/fdaaa.html (accessed Feb 2011).
- 46. Coombes R. UK government will tighten the law on trial results after weaknesses found in safety legislation. BMJ 2008; 336: 576-577.
- 47. European Commission. Medicinal products for human use. Transparency of information related to clinical trials. http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/clinical-trials/index_en.htm (accessed Jul 2011).
- 48. Haines IE, Miklos GLG. Time to mandate data release and independent audits for all clinical trials. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 575-577. <MJA full text>
- 49. Starr M, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Oxman AD. The origins, evolution and future of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (Suppl 1): 182-195.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.