Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1982; 21(02): 81-85
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635396
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Quality of Clinical Trials — A Concern of Three Decades

Die Qualität Klinischer Therapiestudien — Ein Anliegen Dreier Jahrzehnte
Elina Hemminki
1   From the Finnish Medical Research Council and the Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

The purpose of this article is to summarize reviews on the quality of clinical trials. Altogether 29 reviews were found. Most clinical trials were judged to be uncontrolled or poorly controlled and/or otherwise poor. To study any change over time, reviews based on reports published 1943—1959, 1960—67, and 1968—77 were considered. The proportion of controlled trials was higher in 1943—59 than in 1968—77. The proportion of trials defined as »good« was lowest in the period 1960—1967. Since the material and definitions varied from one review to the other, the results should be interpreted to reflect the reviewers’ concern about quality rather than the actual quality of the trials themselves. In fact, in most reviews, in which the criteria and material used over time were comparable, the quality of trials had improved. But various factors guarantee that worries about the quality of clinical trials will continue.

Zweck dieser Arbeit ist es, Übersichtsartikel über die Qualität klinischer Therapiestudien zusammenzustellen. Insgesamt 29 Übersichtsartikel wurden gefunden. Die meisten klinischen Therapiestudien wurden als unkontrolliert oder schlecht kontrolliert und/oder in sonstiger Hinsicht dürftig beurteilt. Um zeitliche Veränderungen festzustellen, wurden die Übersichtsartikel nach den Berichtszeiträumen 1943—1959, 1960—1967 und 1968—1977 differenziert. Der Anteil kontrollierter Studien war im Zeitraum 1943—1959 höher als 1968—1977. Der Anteil von als »gut« bezeichneten Studien war am niedrigsten im Zeitraum 1960—1967. Da Material und Definitionen der verschiedenen Übersichtsartikel sehr unterschiedlich waren, spiegeln deren Ergebnisse eher die Besorgnis des jeweiligen Verfassers über die Qualität wider als die tatsächliche Qualität der Studien selbst. In der Tat geht aus den meisten Übersichtsartikeln, bei denen die Kriterien und das über den Beobachtungszeitraum benutzte Material vergleichbar waren, hervor, daß die Qualität der Studien besser wurde. Verschiedene Faktoren lassen es jedoch als sicher erscheinen, daß Besorgnisse über die Qualität klinischer Therapiestudien auch in Zukunft anhalten werden.

Key-Words

Clinical Trials - Evaluation Study - Review

Schlüssel-Wörter

Klinische Therapiestudien - Auswertungsstudie - Übersichtsartikel
 

  • References

  • 1 Armitage P. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Armstrong D. Clinical Sense and Clinical Science. Soc. Sci. & Med 1977; 11: 599-601.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Badgley R. F. An Assessment of Research Methods Reported in 103 Scientific Articles from Two Canadian Journals. Canad. med. Ass. J 1961; 85: 246-250.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chalmers T. C. A Challenge to Clinical Investigators. Gastroenterology 1969; 57: 631-635.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chalmers T. C, Block J. B, Lee S. Controlled Studies in Clinical Cancer Research. New Engl. J. Med 1972; 287: 75-78.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chodak G.W, Plant M.E. Use of Systemic Antibiotics for Prophylaxis in Surgery. Arch. Surg 1977; 112: 326-334.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Christensen E, Juhl E, Tygstrup N. Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer. Randomized Clinical Trials of a Decade (1964 to 1974). Gastroenterology 1977; 73: 1170-1178.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cronberg S, Melander A, Stenberg P. Saknar bromhexin expektorande egenskaper. Läkartidningen 1978; 75: 114-115.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dixon R. B. The Current Status of Guidelines for Clinical Research from the Viewpoint of the Pharmaceutical Industry. J. clin. Pharmacol 1977; 17: 691-696.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Foulds G. A. Clinical Research in Psychiatry. J. ment. Sci 1958; 104: 259-265.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fox B. The Investigation of the Effects of Psychiatric Treatment. J. ment. Sci 1961; 107: 493-502.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Freiman J. A, Chalmers T. C, Smith H, Kuebler R. R. The Importance of Beta, the Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Control Trial. New Engl. J. Med 1978; 299: 690-694.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gifford R. H, Feinstein A. R. A Critique of Methodology in Studies of Anticoagulant Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction. New Engl. J. Med 1969; 280: 351-357.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Glick B. S, Margolis R. A Study of the Influence of Experimental Design on Clinical Outcome in Drug Research. Amer. J. Psychiat 1962; 118: 1087-1096.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gore S. M, Jones I. G, Rytter E. C. Misuse of Statistical Methods: Critical Assessment of Articles in BMJ from January to March 1976. Brit. med. J 1977; I: 85-87.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hallen L. G. Kärldilatantia. Klinisk effekt vid perifera genomblödnings-rubbningar. En litteraturöversikt. Läkartidningen 1965; 62: 3149-3152.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heaton-Ward W. A. Inference and Suggestion in a Clinical Trial. J. ment. Sci 1962; 108: 865-870.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hemminki E. Properties of Reports of Clinical Trials Submitted by Drug Industry to the Finnish and Swedish Control Authorities. Europ. J. clin. Pharmacol 1981; 19: 157-165.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hemminki E. Study of Information Submitted by Drug Companies to Licensing Authorities. Brit. med. J 1980; 280: 833-836.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hemminki E, Falkum E. Psychotropic Drug Registration in the Scandinavian Countries: the Role of Clinical Trials. Soc. Sci. & Med 14A 1980; 547-559.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huskisson E. C, Scott J. How Double Blind is Double Blind? And Does it Matter? Brit. J. clin. Pharmacol 1976; 3: 331-332.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jonsson CO, Mårtens S, Sjöqvist F. Synpunkter på klinisk prövning av läkemedel—speciellt psykofarmaka. Nord, psykiat. T 1969; 23: 281-289.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Juhl E, Christensen E, Tygstrup N. The Epidemiology of the Gastrointestinal Randomized Clinical Trial. New Engl. J. Med 1977; 296: 20-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Klein D, Davis J, (1969) cited by Mardolin D, Phillips D. Methodological Issues in Psychopharmacological Research: Chlorpromazine—A Case in Point. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat 1976; 46: 477-495.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lionel N.D.W, Herxheimer A. Assessing Reports of Therapeutic Trials. Brit. med. J 1970; III: 637-640.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mahon W. A, Daniel E.E. A Method for the Assessment of Reports of Drug Trials. Canad. med. Ass. J 1964; 90: 565-569.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 O’Brien W. M. Indomethacin: A Survey of Clinical Trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther 1968; 9: 94-107.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Patterson H. R. Controls in Clinical Studies. Lancet 1962; I: 90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Reiffenstein R.J, Schiltroth A.J, Todd D.M. Current Standards in Reported Drug Trials. Canad. med. Ass. J 1968; 99: 1134-1135.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ross O.B. Use of Controls in Medical Research. J. Amer, med. Ass 1951; 145: 72-75.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rothman K.J. Epidemiological Methods in Clinical Trials. Cancer 1977; 39: 1771-1775.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sandifer M.B, Dunham R.M, Howard K. Reporting and Design of Research on Psychiatric Drug Treatment; a Comparison of Two Years. Psychopharmacol. Serv. Cent. Bull 1961; 1: 6-10.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schor S, Karten I. Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts. J. Amer. med. Ass 1966; 195: 1123-1128.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Smith A, Traganza E, Harrison G. Studies on the Effectiveness of Antidepressant Drugs. Psychofarmacology, Special Issue March 1969: 1-53.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Wechsler H, Grosser G.H, Greenblatt M. Research Evaluating Antidepressant Medications on Hospitalized Mental Patients: A Survey of Published Reports During a Five-Year Period. J. nerv. ment. Dis 1965; 141: 231-239.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Weinstein M.C, Stason W.B. Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health and Medical Practices. New Engl. J. Med 1977; 296: 716-721.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 West S, Brandon B, Stolley P., Rumrill R. A Review of Antihistamines and the Common Cold. Pediatrics 1975; 56: 100-107.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Zifferblatt S.M, Wilbur CS. A Psychological Perspective for Double-Blind Trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther 1978; 23: 1-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar