Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Registered clinical trials make positive findings vanish
http://www.nature.com/news/registered-clinical-trials-make-positive-findings-vanish-1.18181?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
Registered clinical trials make positive findings vanish
A study showing a fall in positive trial results after the roll-out of clinicaltrials.gov attracted much attention on social media.
Chris Woolston
13 August 2015
The launch of the clinicaltrials.gov registry in 2000 seems to have had a striking impact on reported trial results, according to a PLoS ONE study1 that many researchers have been talking about online in the past week.
A 1997 US law mandated the registrys creation, requiring researchers from 2000 to record their trial methods and outcome measures before collecting data. The study found that in a sample of 55 large trials testing heart-disease treatments, 57% of those published before 2000 reported positive effects from the treatments. But that figure plunged to just 8% in studies that were conducted after 2000. Study author Veronica Irvin, a health scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, says this suggests that registering clinical studies is leading to more rigorous research. Writing on his NeuroLogica Blog, neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, called the study encouraging but also a bit frightening because it casts doubt on previous positive results.
<snip>
Irvin says that by having to state their methods and measurements before starting their trial, researchers cannot then cherry-pick data to find an effect once the study is over. Its more difficult for investigators to selectively report some outcomes and exclude others, she says.
Many online observers applauded the evident power of registration and transparency, including Novella, who wrote on his blog that all research involving humans should be registered before any data are collected. However, he says, this means that at least half of older, published clinical trials could be false positives. Loose scientific methods are leading to a massive false positive bias in the literature, he writes.
<snip>
Registered clinical trials make positive findings vanish
A study showing a fall in positive trial results after the roll-out of clinicaltrials.gov attracted much attention on social media.
Chris Woolston
13 August 2015
The launch of the clinicaltrials.gov registry in 2000 seems to have had a striking impact on reported trial results, according to a PLoS ONE study1 that many researchers have been talking about online in the past week.
A 1997 US law mandated the registrys creation, requiring researchers from 2000 to record their trial methods and outcome measures before collecting data. The study found that in a sample of 55 large trials testing heart-disease treatments, 57% of those published before 2000 reported positive effects from the treatments. But that figure plunged to just 8% in studies that were conducted after 2000. Study author Veronica Irvin, a health scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, says this suggests that registering clinical studies is leading to more rigorous research. Writing on his NeuroLogica Blog, neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, called the study encouraging but also a bit frightening because it casts doubt on previous positive results.
<snip>
Irvin says that by having to state their methods and measurements before starting their trial, researchers cannot then cherry-pick data to find an effect once the study is over. Its more difficult for investigators to selectively report some outcomes and exclude others, she says.
Many online observers applauded the evident power of registration and transparency, including Novella, who wrote on his blog that all research involving humans should be registered before any data are collected. However, he says, this means that at least half of older, published clinical trials could be false positives. Loose scientific methods are leading to a massive false positive bias in the literature, he writes.
<snip>
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1415 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Registered clinical trials make positive findings vanish (Original Post)
bananas
Aug 2015
OP
To paraphrase Martha Stewart - registered clinical trials - it's a good thing. nt
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Aug 2015
#2
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)1. Message for the drug companies
Drug makers complain it takes too much time and money to get FDA approval. Hey, guys! If you were honest about your drugs, this might not be so complicated. Just a thought.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)2. To paraphrase Martha Stewart - registered clinical trials - it's a good thing. nt