Promising evidence from clinical studies of drug effects does not always translate to improvements in patient outcomes. In this review, we discuss why early evidence is often ill suited to the task of predicting the clinical utility of drugs. The current gap between initially described drug effects and their subsequent clinical utility results from deficits in the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, and synthesis of clinical studies—often creating conditions that generate favorable, but ultimately incorrect, conclusions regarding drug effects. There are potential solutions that could improve the relevance of clinical evidence in predicting the real-world effectiveness of drugs. What is needed is a new emphasis on clinical utility, with nonconflicted entities playing a greater role in the generation, synthesis, and interpretation of clinical evidence. Clinical studies should adopt strong design features, reflect clinical practice, and evaluate outcomes and comparisons that are meaningful to patients. Transformative changes to the research agenda may generate more meaningful and accurate evidence on drug effects to guide clinical decision making.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I. 1.  et al. 2014. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:9912101–4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Eichler HG, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Flamion B, Gustafsson LL. 2.  et al. 2011. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10:7495–506 [Google Scholar]
  3. Pereira TV, Ioannidis JPA. 3.  2011. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64:101060–69 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ioannidis JPA, Trikalinos TA. 4.  2005. Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58:6543–49 [Google Scholar]
  5. Pereira TV, Horwitz RI, Ioannidis JPA. 5.  2012. Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA 308:161676–84 [Google Scholar]
  6. Prasad V, Gall V, Cifu A. 6.  2011. The frequency of medical reversal. Arch. Intern. Med. 171:181675–76 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ioannidis JPA. 7.  2005. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294:2218–28 [Google Scholar]
  8. Roses AD. 8.  2008. Pharmacogenetics in drug discovery and development: a translational perspective. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7:10807–17 [Google Scholar]
  9. Topol EJ. 9.  2004. Failing the public health—rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:171707–9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M. 10.  2004. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 364:94502021–29 [Google Scholar]
  11. Singh S, Loke YK, Spangler JG, Furberg CD. 11.  2011. Risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events associated with varenicline: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 183:121359–66 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fullerton CA, Busch AB, Frank RG. 12.  2010. The rise and fall of gabapentin for bipolar disorder: a case study on off-label pharmaceutical diffusion. Med. Care 48:4372–79 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chalmers I. 13.  1990. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263:101405–8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K. 14.  et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383:9913257–66 [Google Scholar]
  15. Light DW, Lexchin JR. 15.  2012. Pharmaceutical research and development: What do we get for all that money?. BMJ 345:e4348 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J. 16.  et al. 2014. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383:9912156–65 [Google Scholar]
  17. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. 17.  2011. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 154:150–55 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ioannidis JPA. 18.  2008. Perfect study, poor evidence: interpretation of biases preceding study design. Semin. Hematol. 45:3160–66 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. 19.  2005. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin. Trials 2:3260–64 [Google Scholar]
  20. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JPA. 20.  2007. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA 298:212517–26 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gøtzsche PC. 21.  1987. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 295:6599654–56 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Donald A. 22.  2010. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63:9983–91 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ioannidis JPA, Karassa FB. 23.  2010. The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence. BMJ 341:c4875 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR. 24.  et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:9912166–75 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. 25.  1985. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine London: Little, Brown, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI. 26.  et al. 2001. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286:7821–30 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ioannidis JPA. 27.  2005. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294:2218–28 [Google Scholar]
  28. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Ioannidis JPA. 28.  2014. Improving the drug development process: more not less randomized trials. JAMA 311:4355–56 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hochman M, McCormick D. 29.  2010. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA 303:10951–58 [Google Scholar]
  30. Prasad V, Jorgenson J, Ioannidis JPA, Cifu A. 30.  2013. Observational studies often make clinical practice recommendations: an empirical evaluation of authors' attitudes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66:4361–66.e4 [Google Scholar]
  31. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D. 31.  et al. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gluud LL. 32.  2006. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163:6493–501 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR. 33.  et al. 1998. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 352:9128609–13 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. 34.  2001. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 135:11982–89 [Google Scholar]
  35. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JPA. 35.  et al. 2002. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287:222973–82 [Google Scholar]
  36. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P. 36.  et al. 2012. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 157:6429–38 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P. 37.  et al. 2008. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336:7644601–5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Dorsey ER, de Roulet J, Thompson JP, Reminick JI, Thai A. 38.  et al. 2010. Funding of US biomedical research, 2003–2008. JAMA 303:2137–43 [Google Scholar]
  39. Patsopoulos NA, Ioannidis JPA, Analatos AA. 39.  2006. Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMJ 332:75491061–64 [Google Scholar]
  40. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. 40.  2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 289:4454–65 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. 41.  2003. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:74001167–70 [Google Scholar]
  42. Bero L. 42.  2013. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: a Cochrane review. JAMA Intern. Med. 173:7580–81 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sismondo S. 43.  2008. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp. Clin. Trials 29:2109–13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. 44.  2006. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333:7572782 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. 45.  2007. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 335:76311202–5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lathyris D, Patsopoulos N, Salanti G, Ioannidis JPA. 46.  2010. Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 40:2172–82 [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith R. 47.  2005. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2:5e138 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sackett DL, Oxman AD. 48.  2003. HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world's two oldest professions. BMJ 327:74291442–45 [Google Scholar]
  49. Munos B. 49.  2009. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8:12959–68 [Google Scholar]
  50. Garattini S. 50.  1997. Are me-too drugs justified?. J. Nephrol. 10:6283–94 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hollis A. 51.  2005. Comment on “The economics of follow-on drug research and development: trends in entry rates and the timing of development.”. Pharmacoeconomics 23:121187–92 discussion 1193–202 [Google Scholar]
  52. Stafford RS, Wagner TH, Lavori PW. 52.  2009. New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling. N. Engl. J. Med. 361:1230–33 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, Salanti G. 53.  2014. Characteristics of networks of interventions: a description of a database of 186 published networks. PLoS ONE 9:1e86754 [Google Scholar]
  54. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JPA. 54.  2008. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann. Intern. Med. 148:7544–53 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ioannidis JPA, Karassa FB, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ. 55.  2013. Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 9:11665–73 [Google Scholar]
  56. Goldberg NH, Schneeweiss S, Kowal MK, Gagne JJ. 56.  2011. Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA 305:171786–89 [Google Scholar]
  57. van Luijn JC, van Loenen AC, Gribnau FW, Leufkens HG. 57.  2008. Choice of comparator in active control trials of new drugs. Ann. Pharmacother. 42:111605–12 [Google Scholar]
  58. van Luijn JC, Gribnau FW, Leufkens HG. 58.  2007. Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 63:2159–62 [Google Scholar]
  59. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. 59.  2012. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380:983637–43 [Google Scholar]
  60. Liberopoulos G, Trikalinos NA, Ioannidis JPA. 60.  2009. The elderly were under-represented in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62:111218–23 [Google Scholar]
  61. Dai C, Stafford RS, Alexander GC. 61.  2005. National trends in cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor use since market release: nonselective diffusion of a selectively cost-effective innovation. Arch. Intern. Med. 165:2171–77 [Google Scholar]
  62. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. 62.  2003. Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am. J. Public Health 93:81261–67 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Spall HC, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. 63.  2007. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297:111233–40 [Google Scholar]
  64. Konrat C, Boutron I, Trinquart L, Auleley GR, Ricordeau P, Ravaud P. 64.  2012. Underrepresentation of elderly people in randomised controlled trials: the example of trials of 4 widely prescribed drugs. PLoS ONE 7:3e33559 [Google Scholar]
  65. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr, Albain KS. 65.  1999. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 341:272061–67 [Google Scholar]
  66. Rehman HU. 66.  2005. Under-representation of the elderly in clinical trials. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 16:6385–86 [Google Scholar]
  67. Heiat A, Gross CP, Krumholz HM. 67.  2002. Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 162:151682–88 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG, Pasquali SK, Peterson ED. 68.  2001. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 286:6708–13 [Google Scholar]
  69. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L. 69.  et al. 2000. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users' guides to patient care. JAMA 284:101290–96 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ocana A, Tannock IF. 70.  2011. When are “positive” clinical trials in oncology truly positive?. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 103:116–20 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kazi DS, Hlatky MA. 71.  2012. Repeat revascularization is a faulty end point for clinical trials. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 5:3249–50 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl EA. 72.  et al. 2007. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 334:7597786 [Google Scholar]
  73. Fleming TR, Powers JH. 73.  2012. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 31:252973–84 [Google Scholar]
  74. Svensson S, Menkes DB, Lexchin J. 74.  2013. Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern. Med. 173:8611–12 [Google Scholar]
  75. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. 75.  1996. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled?. Ann. Intern. Med. 125:7605–13 [Google Scholar]
  76. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. 76.  2011. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 343:d7995 [Google Scholar]
  77. Pandor A, Ara RM, Tumur I, Wilkinson AJ, Paisley S. 77.  et al. 2009. Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Intern. Med. 265:5568–80 [Google Scholar]
  78. Brown BG, Taylor AJ. 78.  2008. Does ENHANCE diminish confidence in lowering LDL or in ezetimibe?. N. Engl. J. Med. 358:141504–7 [Google Scholar]
  79. Doggrell SA. 79.  2012. The ezetimibe controversy—can this be resolved by comparing the clinical trials with simvastatin and ezetimibe alone and together?. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 13:101469–80 [Google Scholar]
  80. Nissen SE. 80.  2008. ENHANCE and ACCORD: controversy over surrogate end points. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 10:3159–61 [Google Scholar]
  81. Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JPA. 81.  2013. Bias in associations of emerging biomarkers with cardiovascular disease. JAMA Intern. Med. 173:8664–71 [Google Scholar]
  82. Ciani O, Buyse M, Garside R, Pavey T, Stein K. 82.  et al. 2013. Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 346:f457 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ioannidis JPA, Panagiotou OA. 83.  2011. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 305:212200–10 [Google Scholar]
  84. Moore TJ, Furberg CD. 84.  2014. Development times, clinical testing, postmarket follow-up, and safety risks for the new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: the class of 2008. JAMA Intern. Med. 174:190–95 [Google Scholar]
  85. Cohen D. 85.  2010. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong. BMJ 341:c4848 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sismondo S. 86.  2008. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc. Sci. Med. 66:91909–14 [Google Scholar]
  87. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J. 87.  et al. 2010. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol. Assess. 14:8iii, ix–xi, 1–193 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ioannidis JPA. 88.  1998. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 279:4281–86 [Google Scholar]
  89. Stern JM, Simes RJ. 89.  1997. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315:7109640–45 [Google Scholar]
  90. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M. 90.  et al. 2014. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383:9913267–76 [Google Scholar]
  91. Kjaergard LL, Gluud C. 91.  2002. Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55:4407–10 [Google Scholar]
  92. Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT. 92.  2008. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 5:2e45 [Google Scholar]
  93. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, Harter M, Kromp M. 93.  et al. 2010. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 341:c4737 [Google Scholar]
  94. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. 94.  2004. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 291:202457–65 [Google Scholar]
  95. Chan AW, Altman DG. 95.  2005. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330:7494753 [Google Scholar]
  96. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. 96.  2013. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS ONE 8:7e66844 [Google Scholar]
  97. Wieseler B, Wolfram N, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Vervolgyi V. 97.  et al. 2013. Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLoS Med. 10:10e1001526 [Google Scholar]
  98. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. 98.  2009. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N. Engl. J. Med. 361:201963–71 [Google Scholar]
  99. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. 99.  2008. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 5:11e217 [Google Scholar]
  100. Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. 100.  2013. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 24:51238–44 [Google Scholar]
  101. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. 101.  2012. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344:d7202 [Google Scholar]
  102. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S. 102.  et al. 2010. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340:c365 [Google Scholar]
  103. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG. 103.  et al. 2004. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 141:10781–88 [Google Scholar]
  104. Papanikolaou PN, Churchill R, Wahlbeck K, Ioannidis JPA. 104.  2004. Safety reporting in randomized trials of mental health interventions. Am. J. Psychiatry 161:91692–97 [Google Scholar]
  105. Yazici Y, Yazici H. 105.  2007. A survey of inclusion of the time element when reporting adverse effects in randomised controlled trials of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 66:1124–27 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ioannidis JPA. 106.  2009. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch. Intern. Med. 169:191737–39 [Google Scholar]
  107. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. 107.  2009. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 169:191756–61 [Google Scholar]
  108. Lee PE, Fischer HD, Rochon PA, Gill SS, Herrmann N. 108.  et al. 2008. Published randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for dementia often lack complete data on harm. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61:111152–60 [Google Scholar]
  109. Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. 109.  2001. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 285:4437–43 [Google Scholar]
  110. Hopewell S, Wolfenden L, Clarke M. 110.  2008. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61:6597–602 [Google Scholar]
  111. Ernst E, Pittler MH. 111.  2001. Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review. BMJ 323:7312546 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, Pilkington K, Hartling L. 112.  et al. 2014. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. BMJ 348:f7668 [Google Scholar]
  113. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. 113.  2000. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 355:92091064–69 [Google Scholar]
  114. Sun X, Ioannidis JPA, Agoritsas T, Alba AC, Guyatt G. 114.  2014. How to use a subgroup analysis: users' guide to the medical literature. JAMA 311:4405–11 [Google Scholar]
  115. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, You JJ, Akl EA. 115.  et al. 2012. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 344:e1553 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rothwell PM. 116.  2005. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 365:9454176–86 [Google Scholar]
  117. Chalmers I, Matthews R. 117.  2006. What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research?. Lancet 367:9509449–50 [Google Scholar]
  118. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JPA. 118.  2013. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ 347:f4313 [Google Scholar]
  119. Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JPA. 119.  2011. Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. Int. J. Epidemiol. 40:51280–91 [Google Scholar]
  120. Chen YL, Yang KH. 120.  2009. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of evidence. Lancet 374:9692786 [Google Scholar]
  121. Gotzsche PC, Hrobjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. 121.  2007. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA 298:4430–37 [Google Scholar]
  122. Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P. 122.  et al. 2010. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 303:121180–87 [Google Scholar]
  123. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH. 123.  et al. 2005. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 294:172203–9 [Google Scholar]
  124. Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. 124.  2008. Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61:3241–46 [Google Scholar]
  125. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. 125.  2012. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst. Rev. 1:60 [Google Scholar]
  126. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. 126.  2008. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 336:76591472–74 [Google Scholar]
  127. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. 127.  2010. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:202058–64 [Google Scholar]
  128. Doshi P, Jones M, Jefferson T. 128.  2012. Rethinking credible evidence synthesis. BMJ 344:d7898 [Google Scholar]
  129. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. 129.  2013. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 347:f4501 [Google Scholar]
  130. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JPA. 130.  2005. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 293:192362–66 [Google Scholar]
  131. Jorgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, Gotzsche PC. 131.  2008. Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8:60 [Google Scholar]
  132. Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA. 132.  2012. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?. BMJ 345:e7031 [Google Scholar]
  133. Stamatakis E, Weiler R, Ioannidis JPA. 133.  2013. Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 43:5469–75 [Google Scholar]
  134. Haidich AB, Pilalas D, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA. 134.  2013. Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66:4371–78 [Google Scholar]
  135. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. 135.  1993. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342:88831317–22 [Google Scholar]
  136. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. 136.  1999. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318:7182527–30 [Google Scholar]
  137. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. 137.  1999. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:201900–5 [Google Scholar]
  138. Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross JS, Keyhani S. 138.  2011. Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ 343:d5621 [Google Scholar]
  139. Lenzer J, Hoffman JR, Furberg CD, Ioannidis JPA. 139.  2013. Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: a tool for protecting patients. BMJ 347:f5535 [Google Scholar]
  140. Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG, Caplan AL, Kirkpatrick JN. 140.  2011. Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch. Intern. Med. 171:6577–84 [Google Scholar]
  141. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr. 141.  2009. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301:8831–41 [Google Scholar]
  142. Shaneyfelt TM, Centor RM. 142.  2009. Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: Go gently into that good night. JAMA 301:8868–69 [Google Scholar]
  143. Ioannidis JPA. 143.  2014. More than a billion people taking statins? Potential implications of the new cardiovascular guidelines. JAMA 311:5463–64 [Google Scholar]
  144. Naci H, Ioannidis JPA. 144.  2013. Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study. BMJ 347:f5577 [Google Scholar]
  145. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. 145.  2013. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ 347:f6753 [Google Scholar]
  146. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. 146.  1998. Understanding controlled trials: What are pragmatic trials?. BMJ 316:7127285 [Google Scholar]
  147. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. 147.  2003. Practical clinical trials. JAMA 290:121624–32 [Google Scholar]
  148. Carpenter D. 148.  2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  149. Fain K, Daubresse M, Alexander G. 149.  2013. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act and postmarketing commitments. JAMA 310:2202–4 [Google Scholar]
  150. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren M-M, Landefeld CS. 150.  2006. Narrative review: The promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann. Intern. Med. 145:4284–93 [Google Scholar]
  151. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. 151.  2008. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann. Intern. Med. 149:4251–58 [Google Scholar]
  152. Gale EAM. 152.  2012. Post-marketing studies of new insulins: sales or science?. BMJ 344:e3974 [Google Scholar]
  153. Dickersin K, Davis BR, Dixon DO, George SL, Hawkinse BS. 153.  et al. 2004. The Society for Clinical Trials supports United States legislation mandating trials registration. Clin. Trials 1:5417–20 [Google Scholar]
  154. Zarin DA. 154.  2013. Participant-level data and the new frontier in trial transparency. N. Engl. J. Med. 369:5468–69 [Google Scholar]
  155. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J. 155.  et al. 2004. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:121250–51 [Google Scholar]
  156. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. 156.  2011. The ClinicalTrials. gov results database—update and key issueS N. Engl. J. Med. 364:9852–60 [Google Scholar]
  157. Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. 157.  2012. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials. gov: cross sectional study BMJ 344:d7373 [Google Scholar]
  158. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC. 158.  et al. 2013. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 158:3200–7 [Google Scholar]
  159. Fleming TR. 159.  2005. Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Aff. 24:167–78 [Google Scholar]
  160. Doshi P, Jefferson T. 160.  2013. Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports. BMJ Open 3:2e002496 [Google Scholar]
  161. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, Ioannidis JPA. 161.  2011. Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 6:9e24357 [Google Scholar]
  162. Doshi P, Goodman SN, Ioannidis JPA. 162.  2013. Raw data from clinical trials: within reach?. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 34:12645–47 [Google Scholar]
  163. Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C. 163.  2012. The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med. 9:4e1001201 [Google Scholar]
  164. Eichler H-G, Pétavy F, Pignatti F, Rasi G. 164.  2013. Access to patient-level trial data—a boon to drug developers. N. Engl. J. Med. 369:171577–79 [Google Scholar]
  165. Gotzsche PC, Jorgensen AW. 165.  2011. Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ 342:d2686 [Google Scholar]
  166. Ioannidis JPA. 166.  2013. Mega-trials for blockbusters. JAMA 309:3239–40 [Google Scholar]
  167. Sorenson C, Naci H, Cylus J, Mossialos E. 167.  2011. Evidence of comparative efficacy should have a formal role in European drug approvals. BMJ 343:d4849 [Google Scholar]
  168. Naci H, Cylus J, Vandoros S, Sato A, Perampaladas K. 168.  2012. Raising the bar for market authorisation of new drugs. BMJ 345:e4261 [Google Scholar]
  169. Naci H, O'Connor AB. 169.  2013. Assessing comparative effectiveness of new drugs before approval using prospective network meta-analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66:8812–16 [Google Scholar]
  170. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. 170.  2003. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290:121624–32 [Google Scholar]
  171. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS. 171.  et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383:9912176–85 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error