Most Clinical Research is Useless: Researcher
Reform is needed so that more clinical research could be useful, according to Stanford University School of Medicine researcher John Ioannidis. Writing in the open access online journal PLOS Medicine, Ioannidis says that clinical research should be useful in that it should make a difference for health and disease outcomes or should be undertaken with that as a reasonable prospect.
He says that features that make clinical research useful include those relating to problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency. “Many studies, even in the major general medical journals, do not satisfy these features,” he says, “and very few studies satisfy most or all of them. Most clinical research therefore fails to be useful not because of its findings but because of its design.”
According to the article, the challenges and problems to solve to improve clinical research involve not only researchers but also institutions, funding mechanisms, the industry, journals, and many other stakeholders, including patients and the public. He discusses steps each of those groups can take to improve the situation.
“Overall,” he concludes, “not only are most research findings false, but, furthermore, most of the true findings are not useful. Medical interventions should and can result in huge human benefit. It makes no sense to perform clinical research without ensuring clinical utility. Reform and improvement are overdue.”