Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 21 June 2016
- journal article
- essay
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 13 (6), e1002049
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
Abstract
John Ioannidis argues that problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency define useful clinical research. He suggests most clinical research is not useful and reform is overdue.This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized Clinical Trials — Removing Unnecessary ObstaclesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2013
- Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and developmentBulletin of the World Health Organization, 2013
- Trial Registration Numbers Are Underreported in Biomedical PublicationsPLOS ONE, 2012
- Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label UseThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Disease Mongering Is Now Part of the Global Health DebatePLoS Medicine, 2008
- Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 2007
- Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic reviewBMJ, 2006
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering * Commentary: Medicalisation of risk factorsBMJ, 2002
- Are clinical trials a cost-effective investment?JAMA, 1989