Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology logoLink to British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
. 1985 Feb;19(2):155–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1985.tb02626.x

Is the clinical trial evidence about new drugs statistically adequate?

J M Bland, D R Jones, S Bennett, D G Cook, A P Haines, A J MacFarlane
PMCID: PMC1463709  PMID: 3872671

Abstract

The statistical adequacy of all papers published in the period 1976-80 describing clinical trials of five non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and two analgesic drugs introduced into the UK market in 1978 and 1979 has been assessed using a checklist of simple criteria. Most trials were reported to be randomised and double-blind. Trial designs were less satisfactory in other important respects; the sample size of most trials was inadequate to demonstrate superiority of the new drug compared with an active control therapy. The period of treatment assessment was short in view of the likelihood of prolonged prescription of drugs in these classes. It is suggested that licensing authorities should demand higher standards of clinical trial evidence offered in support of new drugs.

Full text

PDF
155

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman D. G. Statistics and ethics in medical research. Misuse of statistics is unethical. Br Med J. 1980 Nov 1;281(6249):1182–1184. doi: 10.1136/bmj.281.6249.1182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. DerSimonian R., Charette L. J., McPeek B., Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982 Jun 3;306(22):1332–1337. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198206033062204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardner M. J., Altman D. G., Jones D. R., Machin D. Is the statistical assessment of papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal" effective? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 7;286(6376):1485–1488. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gifford R. H., Feinstein A. R. A critique of methodology in studies of anticoagulant therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1969 Feb 13;280(7):351–357. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196902132800703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gore S. M., Jones I. G., Rytter E. C. Misuse of statistical methods: critical assessment of articles in BMJ from January to March 1976. Br Med J. 1977 Jan 8;1(6053):85–87. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6053.85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. HILL A. B. Observation and experiment. N Engl J Med. 1953 Jun 11;248(24):995–1001. doi: 10.1056/NEJM195306112482401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hemminki E. Quality of reports of clinical trials submitted by the drug industry to the Finnish and Swedish control authorities. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1981 Feb;19(3):157–165. doi: 10.1007/BF00561942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Inman W. H. Postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions in general practice. II: Prescription-event monitoring at the University of Southampton. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Apr 11;282(6271):1216–1217. doi: 10.1136/bmj.282.6271.1216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lionel N. D., Herxheimer A. Assessing reports of therapeutic trials. Br Med J. 1970 Sep 12;3(5723):637–640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5723.637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. MAHON W. A., DANIEL E. E. A METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF REPORTS OF DRUG TRIALS. Can Med Assoc J. 1964 Feb 29;90:565–569. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schor S., Karten I. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA. 1966 Mar 28;195(13):1123–1128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. White S. J. Statistical errors in papers in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Oct;135:336–342. doi: 10.1192/bjp.135.4.336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of British Pharmacological Society

RESOURCES