Philosophy Department publications

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1911/63610

Browse

Browsing Philosophy Department publications by Author "Ashton, Carol M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Are Surgical Trials with Negative Results Being Interpreted Correctly?
    (Elsevier, 2013) Brody, Baruch A.; Ashton, Carol M.; Liu, Dandan; Xiong, Youxin; Yao, Xuan; Wray, Nelda P.
    BACKGROUND: Many published accounts of clinical trials report no differences between the treatment arms, while being underpowered to find differences. This study determined how the authors of these reports interpreted their findings. STUDY DESIGN: We examined 54 reports of surgical trials chosen randomly from a database of 110 influential trials conducted in 2008. Seven that reported having adequate statistical power (b 0.9) were excluded from further analysis, as were the 32 that reported significant differences between the treatment arms. We examined the remaining 15 to see whether the authors interpreted their negative findings appropriately. Appropriate interpretations discussed the lack of power and/or called for larger studies. RESULTS: Three of the 7 trials that did not report an a priori power calculation offered inappropriate interpretations, as did 3 of the 8 trials that reported an a priori power < 0.90. However, we examined only a modest number of trial reports from 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Negative findings in underpowered trials were often interpreted as showing the equivalence of the treatment arms with no discussion of the issue of being underpowered. This may lead clinicians to accept new treatments that have not been validated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Do Surgical Trials Meet the Scientific Standards for Clinical Trials?
    (Elsevier, 2012) Wenner, Danielle M.; Brody, Baruch A.; Jarman, Anna F.; Kolman, Jacob M.; Wray, Nelda P.; Ashton, Carol M.
    Unlike medications, the dissemination of surgical procedures into practice is not regulated. Before marketing, pharmaceutical products are required to be shown safe and efficacious in comparative clinical trials that use bias-reducing strategies designed to reduce the distortion of estimates of treatment effect by predispositions toward the investigational intervention or control. Unless an investigational device is involved, the corresponding process for surgical innovations is usually unregulated and therefore may not be based on adequate evidence. Given these differences, we sought to evaluate the state of clinical research on invasive procedures. We conducted a systematic review of publications from 1999 through 2008, which reported the results of studies evaluating the effects of invasive therapeutic procedures, focusing on trials that appeared to influence practice. Our objective was to determine what proportion of studies evaluating surgical procedures use a comparative clinical trial design and methods to control bias. This article reports our results and raises concerns about the methodologic, and therefore the ethical, quality of clinical research used to justify the implementation of surgical procedures into practice.