Clinical Trials

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flather, M.
Right arrow Articles by Collinson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flather, M.
Right arrow Articles by Collinson, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Trials, Vol. 3, No. 6, 508-512 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774506073464

Generalizing results of randomized trials to clinical practice: reliability and cautions

Marcus Flather

Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK, m.flather{at}cteu.org

Nicola Delahunty

Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

Julian Collinson

Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust, London, UK

Background Well designed randomized controlled trials provide reliable evidence of treatment effects, but there is no consensus on how best to apply these results to clinical practice. The main concerns are that populations enrolled in trials are more selected than those treated in a clinical setting, and whether the treatment effects observed in trials will also be observed in clinical practice.

Methods An informal literature review was undertaken to find studies analysing the issue of generalizing trial results (external validity) to clinical practice.

Results Most of the studies focused on differences in patients characteristics (age, gender, severity of disease, concomitant treatments and so on) between the clinical trial population and a ‘real world’ clinical population. None provided good evidence of a reduction in the treatment effect in the trial compared to what might happen in clinical practice for simple pharmacological treatments. However complex treatments like surgery or percutaneous interventional procedures, had a greater potential for variation. Extrapolating treatments to different health care settings from the trial can result in important variations in treatment effects.

Conclusions Complex therapies need careful consideration before they can be applied routinely from trials into practice, and applying results from one health care environment to a different one should be carried out with caution. Generalizing results from well conducted trials to clinical practice can mostly be carried out with confidence, especially for simple therapies with good evidence of benefit.

References

  • Horton R. Common sense and figures: the rhetoric of validity in medicine (Bradford Hill Memorial Lecture 1999) . Stat Med 2000; 19: 3149-3164 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Seale JP, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Generalizing the results of trials to clinical practice . Medical Journal of Australia 2004; 181: 558-560 .[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bang H, Davis CE. On estimating treatment effects under non-compliance in randomized clinical trials: are intent-to-treat or instrumental variables analyses perfect solutions? Stat Med. e-pub Aug 2006.
  • Kostis JB, Packer M, Black HR, Schmieder R, Henry D, Levy E. Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension: the Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial . Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 103-111 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials . Br Med J 1999; 319: 670-674 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Buyse M, George SL, Evans Set al. The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials . Stat Med 1999; 18: 3435-3451 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim Set al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials . Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-168 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy . JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-1632 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson Iet al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity . BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3: 28-28 .
  • Iwasaki M, Yamamoto S, Otani Tet al.Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group. Generalizability of relative risk estimates from a well-defined population to a general population, Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group . Eur J Epidemiol 2006; 21: 253-262 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Posternak MA. Generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials: differences between depressed psychiatric outpatients who would or would not qualify for an efficacy trial . Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1370-1372 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Yessaian A, Mendivil AA, Brewster WR. Population characteristics in cervical cancer trials: search for external validity . Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 407-413 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bahit MC, Cannon CP, Antman EMet al.; TIMI 9 Trial and TIMI 9 Registry. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction. Direct comparison of characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients enrolled versus patients not enrolled in a clinical trial at centers participating in the TIMI 9 Trial and TIMI 9 Registry . Am Heart J 2003; 145: 109-117 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Baker SG, Kramer BS. Randomized trials, generalizability, and meta-analysis: graphical insights for binary outcomes . BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 10-10 .[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP. From subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy . Lancet 2005; 365: 256-265 .[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rothwell PM, Warlow CP, on behalf of the European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Prediction of benefit from carotid endarterectomy in individual patients: a risk modelling study . Lancet 1999; 353: 2105-2110 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Terrin N, Schmid CH, Griffith JL, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP. External validity of predictive models: a comparison of logistic regression, classification trees, and neural networks . J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 721-729 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lund E, Kumle M, Braaten Tet al. External validity in a population-based national prospective study-the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC) . Cancer Causes Control 2003; 14: 1001-1008 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • CAPRIE Steering Committee. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE) . Lancet 1996; 348: 1329-1339 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Caro JJ, Migliaccio-Walle K. Generalizing the results of clinical trials to actual practice: the example of clopidogrel therapy for the prevention of vascular events. CAPRA (CAPRIE Actual Practice Rates Analysis) Study Group. Clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events . Am J Med 1999; 107: 568-572 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Elting LS, Cooksley C, Bekele BNet al. Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and non-participants . Cancer 2006; 106: 2452-2458 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YPet al.COMMIT (ClOpidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial) collaborative group. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial . Lancet 2005; 366: 1607-1621 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flather, M.
Right arrow Articles by Collinson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flather, M.
Right arrow Articles by Collinson, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?