Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes

Abstract

In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.

Do We Need A Wider Therapeutic Paradigm For Heart Failure With Comorbidities?: A Remote Australian Perspective

“…"The practice of medicine ought to be based on solid scientific evidence, not on assumptions or extrapolations [37]", and this is particularly so for those who sit on the margins of the study enrolment criteria. In ideal circumstances RCT should be designed and reported to facilitate broader approval, however, many studies are driven or financed through industry support, which can control the publication and content of results [38][39][40][41][42]. It is widely and rightfully accepted that study results do in fact appeal to the broader community.…”

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results When Product Development Is Abandoned

“…erefore, the peer-reviewed journal article, if no longer the primary repository of clinical trial results data, remains essential to the adequate reporting of clinical research, including studies of products for which development is not pursued (18,28). Such reports need to be carefully cra ed to avoid the "spin" (distorted presentation) that has been found in reports of trials with statistically nonsigni cant results (29).…”

A Critical Appraisal of the PETITE Study Report: Topical Corticosteroids Are Safe and Effective in the Long-term Treatment of Infantile Atopic Dermatitis

“…1,2 Most authors of the drug company-sponsored PETITE study have declared conflicts of interest, and we note several respective issues in the published report of this study that make it a good example of "spin. "…”