Call 413.540.1234 to
schedule an appointment
CONCERN/EAP: 413.534.2625
Billing questions? Call: 413.540.1212
CRISIS: 413.733.6661

Health Policy & Advocacy
Resources
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest News
Unused Meds? Saturday Is National Drug Take Back DayA Doctor's Age May Matter With Emergency SurgeryPatients Prefer Doctors Who Engage in Face-to-Face VisitsU.S. Better Able to Tackle Health Emergencies: ReportFirst Opioid Lawsuit Targeting Pharmacy Benefit ManagersMost Doctors' Offices Don't Offer Flexibility for UninsuredSafety Info for Opioids Found LackingNonoptimized Drug Therapy Costs More Than $500 Billion AnnuallyFDA Cracks Down on Caffeine-Loaded SupplementsCigarette Tax Hike Could Ease Poverty for Millions Worldwide: StudyCDC: Aggressive Action Needed to Contain Antibiotic ResistanceCould Medical Pot Help Curb the Opioid Abuse Crisis?Medical E-Records Not Without Risks: StudyHealth Groups Sue FDA to Speed Review of E-CigarettesEHR Usability Contributes to Possible Patient Harm EventsAHA: Solving the Dilemma of Not Enough HeartsUnchecked Air Pollution a Death Sentence for Millions: StudyPersonal Health Info Found in Recycling at Five HospitalsTask Force Issues Stronger Skin Cancer Prevention GuidelinesFDA Considers Lowering Nicotine Levels in CigarettesDoctors Facing Challenge to Help Needy While Protecting PracticesPharmacists Encouraged to Learn More About Herbal SupplementsBan Menthols to Help Some Smokers QuitStem Cell Clinics Pitch Pricey, Bogus 'Cures' for Knee PainMany Americans Think Docs Order Too Many Tests, MedsIs Herbal Drug Kratom a Health Friend or Foe?Early Studies Often Show Exaggerated Treatment EffectStrong Tobacco Laws May Weed Out Vapers, TooUnderstanding Rx Nonadherence Can Improve AdherenceBystander Use of Defib Device Doubles Chances of Surviving Cardiac ArrestNew Research Debunks Two Medical Marijuana MythsTake Early Clinical Trials With a Grain of SaltCould Hackers Target Heart Devices?Protecting Your Electronic Health RecordsAfter Another Shooting Tragedy, 'Stop the Bleed' Kits Urged for SchoolsPatients Want Physicians to Have Greater ConnectivityYour Tax Dollars Fund Research on Hundreds of New MedsFour Best Practices Outlined to Prevent Health Care CyberattacksMany Patients Know Too Little About Their MRI, CT Scans: StudyUnsafe Water Found in Faucets Across the U.S.Health Tip: Prevent Exposure to LeadHealth Tip: Online Pharmacies You Should AvoidDon't Count on an American to Do CPRPoll: Personal Beliefs Shouldn't Allow Doctors to Refuse to TreatFDA Says U.S. Will Now Produce Critical MRI ComponentPicking a New Primary Care DoctorUber, Lyft Rides May Not Help Boost Doc Visits for Poorer Patients2018 Immunization Schedule Issued for U.S. ChildrenA Hidden Source of 'Superbugs' in Hospitals?2018 Immunization Schedule Issued for U.S. Adults
Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews
Related Topics

Early Studies Often Show Exaggerated Treatment Effect


HealthDay News
Updated: Feb 27th 2018

new article illustration

TUESDAY, Feb. 27, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- Trials to evaluate drugs or devices used to treat chronic medical conditions that are published early in the chain of evidence often show an exaggerated treatment effect compared with subsequent trials, according to research published online Feb. 21 in the Mayo Clinical Proceedings.

Fares Alahdab, M.D., from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues assessed meta-analyses (MAs), published between Jan. 1, 2007, and June 23, 2015, in the 10 general medical journals with highest impact factor to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a drug or device in patients with chronic medical conditions.

The researchers identified 70 MAs that had included a total of 930 RCTs with an average follow-up of 24 months. An exaggerated early effect (defined as the proportion of MAs with largest effect or heterogeneity in the first two trials) was seen in 37 percent of MAs. On average, the effect size in the early trials was 2.67 times larger than the overall pooled effect size (ratio of relative effects, 2.67). There were no significant associations between the presence of exaggerated effect and trial size; number of events; length of follow-up; intervention duration; number of study sites; inpatient versus outpatient setting; funding source; stopping a trial early; adequacy of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, or blinding; loss to follow-up; or the test for publication bias.

"Considering the increasing morbidity and mortality of chronic medical conditions, decision makers should act on early evidence with caution," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text
Editorial