The deception and fallacies of sponsored randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trials: the bisphosphonate research example.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial (RCT) is accepted as Level I evidence and is highly regarded. However, RCTs that gained FDA approval of drugs such as Vioxx, Fen-Phen, and oral and intravenous bisphosphonates have proven to generate misleading results and have not adequately identified serious adverse reactions. The development, research, and clinical marketing of the oral and intravenous bisphosphonates can serve as a representative example for the deteriorated value of many of today's RCTs. The expected high value of RCTs is jeopardized by: (1) sponsorship that incorporates bias; (2) randomization that can select out an expected improved result or eliminate higher-risk individuals; (3) experimental design that can avoid recognition of serious adverse reactions; (4) blinding that can easily become unblinded by the color, shape, odor, or administration requirements of a drug; (5) definitions that can define an observation as something other than what it actually represents, or fail to define it as an adverse reaction; (6) labeling of retrospective data as a prospective trial by using adjudicators prospectively to look at retrospective data; (7) change of the length of study to avoid the longer-term adverse reaction from accumulation of drug or treatment effects; (8) ghost writing, as when drug company physicians or a hired corporation either edit or write the entire protocol and/or manuscript for publication. Such corruption of the well-intended properly conducted RCT should be viewed with a sense of outrage by practitioners and requires a restructuring of the levels of evidence accepted today.

Original languageEnglish
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Diphosphonates
Deception
Occupational Health Physicians
Clinical Trials
Drug Approval
Manuscripts
Random Allocation
Marketing
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Publications
Research Design
Color
Observation
Therapeutics
Odorants
rofecoxib

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{144e5f0700ab4af3a53e5a35e40a83b1,
title = "The deception and fallacies of sponsored randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trials: the bisphosphonate research example.",
abstract = "The randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial (RCT) is accepted as Level I evidence and is highly regarded. However, RCTs that gained FDA approval of drugs such as Vioxx, Fen-Phen, and oral and intravenous bisphosphonates have proven to generate misleading results and have not adequately identified serious adverse reactions. The development, research, and clinical marketing of the oral and intravenous bisphosphonates can serve as a representative example for the deteriorated value of many of today's RCTs. The expected high value of RCTs is jeopardized by: (1) sponsorship that incorporates bias; (2) randomization that can select out an expected improved result or eliminate higher-risk individuals; (3) experimental design that can avoid recognition of serious adverse reactions; (4) blinding that can easily become unblinded by the color, shape, odor, or administration requirements of a drug; (5) definitions that can define an observation as something other than what it actually represents, or fail to define it as an adverse reaction; (6) labeling of retrospective data as a prospective trial by using adjudicators prospectively to look at retrospective data; (7) change of the length of study to avoid the longer-term adverse reaction from accumulation of drug or treatment effects; (8) ghost writing, as when drug company physicians or a hired corporation either edit or write the entire protocol and/or manuscript for publication. Such corruption of the well-intended properly conducted RCT should be viewed with a sense of outrage by practitioners and requires a restructuring of the levels of evidence accepted today.",
author = "Robert Marx",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.te40",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
journal = "The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The deception and fallacies of sponsored randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trials

T2 - the bisphosphonate research example.

AU - Marx, Robert

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - The randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial (RCT) is accepted as Level I evidence and is highly regarded. However, RCTs that gained FDA approval of drugs such as Vioxx, Fen-Phen, and oral and intravenous bisphosphonates have proven to generate misleading results and have not adequately identified serious adverse reactions. The development, research, and clinical marketing of the oral and intravenous bisphosphonates can serve as a representative example for the deteriorated value of many of today's RCTs. The expected high value of RCTs is jeopardized by: (1) sponsorship that incorporates bias; (2) randomization that can select out an expected improved result or eliminate higher-risk individuals; (3) experimental design that can avoid recognition of serious adverse reactions; (4) blinding that can easily become unblinded by the color, shape, odor, or administration requirements of a drug; (5) definitions that can define an observation as something other than what it actually represents, or fail to define it as an adverse reaction; (6) labeling of retrospective data as a prospective trial by using adjudicators prospectively to look at retrospective data; (7) change of the length of study to avoid the longer-term adverse reaction from accumulation of drug or treatment effects; (8) ghost writing, as when drug company physicians or a hired corporation either edit or write the entire protocol and/or manuscript for publication. Such corruption of the well-intended properly conducted RCT should be viewed with a sense of outrage by practitioners and requires a restructuring of the levels of evidence accepted today.

AB - The randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial (RCT) is accepted as Level I evidence and is highly regarded. However, RCTs that gained FDA approval of drugs such as Vioxx, Fen-Phen, and oral and intravenous bisphosphonates have proven to generate misleading results and have not adequately identified serious adverse reactions. The development, research, and clinical marketing of the oral and intravenous bisphosphonates can serve as a representative example for the deteriorated value of many of today's RCTs. The expected high value of RCTs is jeopardized by: (1) sponsorship that incorporates bias; (2) randomization that can select out an expected improved result or eliminate higher-risk individuals; (3) experimental design that can avoid recognition of serious adverse reactions; (4) blinding that can easily become unblinded by the color, shape, odor, or administration requirements of a drug; (5) definitions that can define an observation as something other than what it actually represents, or fail to define it as an adverse reaction; (6) labeling of retrospective data as a prospective trial by using adjudicators prospectively to look at retrospective data; (7) change of the length of study to avoid the longer-term adverse reaction from accumulation of drug or treatment effects; (8) ghost writing, as when drug company physicians or a hired corporation either edit or write the entire protocol and/or manuscript for publication. Such corruption of the well-intended properly conducted RCT should be viewed with a sense of outrage by practitioners and requires a restructuring of the levels of evidence accepted today.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900031338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900031338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.te40

DO - 10.11607/jomi.te40

M3 - Article

C2 - 24451886

AN - SCOPUS:84900031338

VL - 29

JO - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

JF - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 1

ER -