ArticleBMJ open2014
Benchmarks for detecting 'breakthroughs' in clinical trials: empirical assessment of the probability of large treatment effects using kernel density estimation.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- US Food and Drug Administration Approvals of Drugs and Devices Based on Nonrandomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2019Pooled it
- Improved inference for vaccine-induced immune responses via shape-constrained methods.Electronic journal of statistics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how often 'breakthroughs,' that is, treatments that significantly improve health outcomes, can be developed.
designWe applied weighted adaptive kernel density estimation to construct the probability density function for observed treatment effects from five publicly funded cohorts and one privately funded group. DATA SOURCES: 820 trials involving 1064 comparisons and enrolling 331,004 patients were conducted by five publicly funded cooperative groups. 40 cancer trials involving 50 comparisons and enrolling a total of 19,889 patients were conducted by GlaxoSmithKline.
resultsWe calculated that the probability of detecting treatment with large effects is 10% (5-25%), and that the probability of detecting treatment with very large treatment effects is 2% (0.3-10%). Researchers themselves judged that they discovered a new, breakthrough intervention in 16% of trials.
conclusionsWe propose these figures as the benchmarks against which future development of 'breakthrough' treatments should be measured.
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.