↓ Skip to main content

Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology
Published in
Trials, January 2001
DOI 10.1186/cvm-2-1-002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce G Charlton

Abstract

The fundamental methodological deficiency of megatrials is deliberate reduction of experimental control in order to maximize recruitment and compliance of subjects. Hence, typical megatrials recruit pathologically and prognostically heterogeneous subjects, and protocols typically fail to exclude significant confounders. Therefore, most megatrials do not test a scientific hypothesis, nor are they informative about individual patients. The proper function of a megatrial is precise measurement of effect size for a therapeutic intervention. Valid megatrials can be designed only when simplification can be achieved without significantly affecting experimental control. Megatrials should be conducted only at the end of a long process of therapeutic development, and must always be designed and interpreted in the context of relevant scientific and clinical information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Other 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 75%
Psychology 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%