» Articles » PMID: 15624072

Challenges to Evidence-based Medicine: a Comparison of Patients and Treatments in Randomized Controlled Trials with Patients and Treatments in a Practice Research Network

Overview
Date 2004 Dec 30
PMID 15624072
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The practice of evidence-based medicine depends on the availability of clinically relevant research, yet questions have been raised about the generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify differences between RCT patients and treatments and those in day-to-day clinical practice.

Research Design: Data from published reports of two key RCTs underlying recent treatment advances in psychiatry were compared with data on routine psychiatric practice collected through a Practice Research Network (PRN).

Setting: Hospital inpatient units (RCT) and the full range of psychiatric practice settings in the United States (PRN).

Subjects: Adults with bipolar I disorder and adults with schizophrenia.

Measures: Demographic (age, gender, race), clinical (principal diagnoses, comorbid conditions, psychosocial functioning, and histories of hospitalization), and treatment (medication name and dosage) characteristics.

Results: PRN patients had more comorbid conditions and were more likely to be white, female, and older than RCT patients. In all, 38% of PRN patients with schizophrenia and 55% of PRN patients with bipolar I disorder would have been ineligible for the corresponding RCT. Most PRN patients receiving an RCT study medication were also receiving other medications not allowed by the RCT protocol.

Conclusions: Findings support the assertion that RCT patients and treatments are not typical of those in clinical practice, and most patients in clinical practice are receiving treatments that do not have direct empirical support. Research is needed to determine the extent to which RCT findings should be used to guide routine clinical decisions.

Citing Articles

A novel approach to assessing disparity in representativeness of clinical trial participants within a large midwestern healthcare system.

Rivelli A, Lefaiver C, Shields M, Ozoani-Lohrer O, Marek A, Hirschtick J Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2024; 38:101274.

PMID: 38390273 PMC: 10881410. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101274.


Significant Differences and Experimental Designs Do Not Necessarily Imply Clinical Relevance: Effect Sizes and Causality Claims in Antidepressant Treatments.

Sanchez-Iglesias I, Martin-Aguilar C J Clin Med. 2023; 12(9).

PMID: 37176620 PMC: 10179584. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093181.


Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.

Jung A, Balzer J, Braun T, Luedtke K BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):100.

PMID: 35387582 PMC: 8985274. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5.


Healthcare Funding Decisions and Real-World Benefits: Reducing Bias by Matching Untreated Patients.

Ghijben P, Petrie D, Zavarsek S, Chen G, Lancsar E Pharmacoeconomics. 2021; 39(7):741-756.

PMID: 33834425 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01020-x.


The trends and associated adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes of labour neuraxial analgesia among vaginal deliveries in China between 2012 and 2019: a real-world observational evidence.

Mu Y, Wang X, Wang Y, Liu Z, Li M, Li X BMC Med. 2021; 19(1):74.

PMID: 33736635 PMC: 7977606. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-01941-6.


References
1.
Amori G, Lenox R . Do volunteer subjects bias clinical trials?. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1989; 9(5):321-7. View

2.
Saver J . Coping with an embarrassment of riches. How stroke centers may participate in multiple, concurrent clinical stroke trials. Stroke. 1995; 26(7):1289-92. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.26.7.1289. View

3.
Zarin D, Seigle L, Pincus H, McIntyre J . Evidence-based practice guidelines. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997; 33(4):641-6. View

4.
Greil W, Steller B, Czernik A, Giedke H, Muller-Oerlinghausen B, Osterheider M . The recruitment process for a multicenter study on the long-term prophylactic treatment of affective disorders. J Affect Disord. 1993; 28(4):257-65. DOI: 10.1016/0165-0327(93)90061-n. View

5.
Chlebowski R, Butler J, Nelson A, Lillington L . Breast cancer chemoprevention. Tamoxifen: current issues and future prospective. Cancer. 1993; 72(3 Suppl):1032-7. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930801)72:3+<1032::aid-cncr2820721315>3.0.co;2-o. View