ReviewNeuroRx : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2004
Evidence from clinical trials: can we do better?
Review in NeuroRx : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Generalizability of the Results of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021Article
- Comment on model-based meta-analysis to evaluate optimal doses of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors in atrial fibrillation patients.Blood advances · 2018Article
- Article
- Generalizability in two clinical trials of Lyme disease.Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials provide the most internally valid evidence for medical decision-making. In many areas of neurology, results from clinical trials showing which therapies are and are not effective have had a substantial impact on patient care. Relative to observational methods, the central advantage of clinical trials is control of bias attributable to unmeasured differences between patients. However, trials also have clear limitations, including a historical failure to include a representative cross-section of patients with a given disease, and highly structured treatment regimes that are difficult to replicate in normal practice settings. These limitations tend to reduce the generalizability of results from clinical trials. This article reviews some ways in which the design and application of clinical trials could be improved so that the evidence produced would be more relevant to health-care providers and other decision makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.