|
 Researchers from Stanford University evaluated 659 randomized
controlled trial reports published by surgeons from 39 countries.
Papers published between 2003 and 2015 were extracted from top
medical and surgical journals including The New England Journal of
Medicine, Annals of Surgery and Journal of the American College of
Surgeons.
In randomized controlled trials, participants are assigned by chance
to separate groups with the purpose of comparing a new treatment to
a different treatment or a sham treatment. These studies provide the
highest level of evidence and are considered the gold standard. They
can last weeks, months or even years.
While the U.S. led the field in absolute number of publications
(157, or 23.8%), the UK, Canada and nearly all Western European
countries published significantly more randomized controlled trials
when adjusted for population.
In 2013-2015, for example, for every 100,000 citizens, the U.S.
published 0.03 papers reporting on randomized controlled trials,
while Canada published 0.05, the UK published 0.07, Switzerland
published 0.10, and the Netherlands published 0.20.
In the same period, for every billion U.S. dollars spent by
governments on research and development, the U.S. published 0.07
randomized controlled trials, Canada published 2.4, the Netherlands
published 6.5, Switzerland published 7.4, and Denmark published
14.4.
“We reported the total number of studies this way to normalize the
publication rates,” co-author Dr. Jared Forrester explained in an
email. “Three published studies in the United States versus the same
amount in Switzerland means a very different thing given the
available money and human resources.”
“There are massive problems with surgical clinical trials in the
U.S.,” Dr. Andrew Vickers of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
in New York City told Reuters Health in a phone interview. “They are
incredibly time consuming, expensive and there are impossible
regulations enacted by governing bodies necessary to overcome in
order to get funded.”
[to top of second column] |
“There’s a need to radically shift the culture to one of
simplification, in more ways than one,” insists Vickers, who was not
involved in the Stanford study.
A proposal sometimes goes through no less than six ethics
committees, each of which add their own modifications to the
original study that must be considered before funding approval, said
Vickers.
Adding to the complexity are rigorous subject exclusion criteria and
extensive documentation that make it difficult to accrue
participants, which can result in trial discontinuation altogether.
Furthermore, not all randomized control trials get published.
“This is especially true when researchers' hypotheses are
disproved,” said coauthor Dr. Sherry Wren in a phone interview. “But
a negative trial is important because it still answers questions.”
“Despite the outcome, when funded, we have an obligation to deliver
on our initial investment through completion of our hypothesis
testing and disseminate the results,” Forrester agreed.
By showing a decline in published randomized control trials by U.S.
researchers, the authors hope to bring attention to the critical
need for dedicated surgical research funds.
“If we want to establish ourselves once again as the preeminent
leaders in biomedical research, we need to rise to the occasion.
This requires a strongly funded environment. We see this paper as a
call-to-arms toward the current system for all U.S. based surgical
researchers,” Wren said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2CVR6jf JAMA Surgery, online December 27,
2017.
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
