0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

Truth Survival in Clinical Research: An Evidence-Based Requiem?

Thierry Poynard, MD, PhD; Mona Munteanu, MD; Vlad Ratziu, MD; Yves Benhamou, MD, PhD; Vincent Di Martino, MD; Julien Taieb, MD; and Pierre Opolon, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.


Acknowledgment: The authors thank Solko Schalm, MD, for his support and helpful comments.

Grant Support: By the European Association for Study of the Liver and Association pour la Recherche sur Maladies Hépatiques Virales.

Requests for Single Reprints: Thierry Poynard, MD, PhD, Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France; e-mail, tpoynard@teaser.fr.

Current author addresses: Drs. Poynard, Munteanu, Ratziu, Benhamou, Di Martino, Taieb, and Opolon: Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France.


Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(12):888-895. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-136-12-200206180-00010
Text Size: A A A

Purpose: Factors associated with the survival of truth of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are unknown. The authors hypothesized that conclusions derived from studies using better methodology should have a longer half-life.

Data Sources: MEDLINE and hand searches of journals with studies on cirrhosis and hepatitis.

Study Selection: Original articles and meta-analyses published from 1945 to 1999 about cirrhosis or hepatitis in adults.

Data Synthesis: In 2000, 285 of 474 conclusions (60%) were still considered to be true, 91 (19%) were considered to be obsolete, and 98 (21%) were considered to be false. The half-life of truth was 45 years. The 20-year survival of conclusions derived from meta-analysis was lower (57% ± 10%) than that from nonrandomized studies (87% ± 2%) (P < 0.001) or randomized trials (85% ± 3%) (P < 0.001). The survival of conclusions was not different when studies of high methodologic quality were compared with those of low quality. In randomized trials, the 50-year survival rate was higher for 52 negative conclusions (68% ± 13%) than for 118 positive conclusions (14% ± 4%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Contrary to the authors' hypothesis, conclusions based on recognized, good methodology had no clear survival advantage. To better convince clinicians of the long-term utility of evidence-based medicine, better prognostic factors should be developed.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Truth survival in original articles and meta-analyses on hepatitis and cirrhosis.

The top panel shows the percentage of studies without false or obsolete conclusions. At 50 years, the mean survival (± SE) was 26% ± 4%. The bottom panel shows the percentage of studies without false conclusions. At 50 years, the mean survival (± SE) was 53% ± 5%.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Truth survival in meta-analyses.

Twenty-year mean survival(±SE) was lower in meta-analyses (57% ± 10%) than in other studies(87% ± 2%).

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)