A sweeping analysis of more than 5,000 papers in eight leading medical journals has found compelling evidence of suspect data in roughly 2% of randomized controlled clinical trials in those journals.
This is not the first time such an observation has been made and it probably won’t be the last. Distorted evidence is a cause for concern when it leads to poor (or even dangerous decision making), but we’re left wondering if we need to try to gather such observations into an omnibus and footnoted a single item in the Resource Library. What do you think? Drop us a line (gary.allen@ahrecs.com) and let us know what you think. This report does highlight the importance for clinical decision making of being well-read on a topic rather than relying on a small sample of articles supporting a treatment.
.
The types of studies analyzed — randomized controlled clinical trials — are considered the gold standard of medical evidence, and tend to be the basis for drug approvals and changes in clinical practice. Carlisle, according to an editorial by John Loadsman and Tim McCulloch accompanying the new study published today in Anesthesia,
.
