Engaging clinicians in the process of trial design, and the ensuing dialogue about best practice, can improve routine care
Evidence-based medicine remains the Holy Grail for clinicians and policy makers, and is dependent on the results of large randomised phase 3 clinical trials and on meta-analyses of all related phase 3 trials of treatment in a specific patient population.1 Irrespective of whether clinical trials test a new intervention or a drug or are comparative effectiveness studies, the findings have the potential to not only affect routine clinical practice but to inform the evidence base to lay a solid foundation for optimal care in the future as well as raise new research questions. The cost of these large trials and the resources required to mount such studies are considerable, which inevitably raises questions about whether the study is essential to answer a clinical question. Indeed, it is not uncommon to be asked by grant reviewers “do we need to do these studies in Australia?”
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard — lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 2175-2181.
- 2. Leong T, Smithers BM, Michael M, et al. TOPGEAR: a randomised phase III trial of perioperative ECF chemotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiation plus perioperative ECF chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (an international, intergroup trial of the AGITG/TROG/EORTC/NCIC CTG). BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 532.
- 3. Goyal J, Nuhn P, Huang P, et al. The effect of clinical trial participation versus non-participation on overall survival in men receiving first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: E575-E582.
- 4. Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED, et al. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 657-662.
- 5. Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, et al. Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0118253.
- 6. Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut 2017; 66: 89-96.
- 7. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 556-560. <MJA full text>
- 8. Soon J, Buchbinder R, Close J, et al. Identifying low-value care: the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ EVOLVE initiative. Med J Aust 2016; 204: 180-181. <MJA full text>
- 9. Department of Health. Medical Research Future Fund: Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy 2016–2021. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mrff (viewed Aug 2017).
We thank Steve Webb (Royal Perth Hospital), Peter Downie (Monash Children’s Hospital) and Trevor Leong (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre).
John Zalcberg is Chair of the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance.