Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Mega-trials: methodological issues and clinical implications

B G Charlton1

  • 1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London
|March 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Limb proportions show developmental plasticity in response to embryo movement.

Scientific reports·2017
Same author

The association between the development of weighing technology, possession and use of weighing scales, and self-reported severity of disordered eating.

Irish journal of medical science·2014
Same author

Corticotropin-releasing factor immunoreactivity in post-mortem brain from depressed suicides.

Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)·2011
Same author

The inequity of inequality: egalitarian instincts and evolutionary psychology.

Journal of health psychology·2011
Same author

Neuroleptics revisited.

QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians·2006
Same author

Why are doctors still prescribing neuroleptics?

QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians·2006
Same journal

A Change of Government and Its Effect on the NHS Hospital Outpatient Service.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
Same journal

Erratum: Model for the Organisation of a Community-Based Rehabilitation Service.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
Same journal

Telemedicine and beyond.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
Same journal

Palliative Care in General Medicine.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
Same journal

Medical Negligence.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
Same journal

In Response.

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London·2019
See all related articles

Mega-trials, large randomized therapeutic trials, offer increased statistical power but raise interpretation questions. Their group-level analysis limits generalizability and individual-level understanding, questioning their scientific rigor.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Trials Methodology
  • Biostatistics
  • Evidence-Based Medicine

Background:

  • The advent of mega-trials represents a significant shift in therapeutic trial design.
  • These large, simple randomized trials are analyzed using an 'intention to treat' approach.
  • While offering statistical advantages, mega-trials introduce novel interpretive challenges.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the methodological strengths and weaknesses of mega-trials.
  • To explore the implications of mega-trial design on scientific understanding and generalizability.
  • To discuss the balance between statistical power and experimental control in large-scale trials.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the 'intention to treat' principle in mega-trial contexts.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of mega-trial methodology with traditional scientific experimental control.
  • Examination of randomisation's role in managing bias and between-subject variation.

    • Main Results:

    • Mega-trials enhance statistical power but may compromise experimental control.
    • Randomisation in mega-trials aims for equal bias distribution rather than bias elimination.
    • Conclusions from mega-trials are observational and not readily testable hypotheses.
    • Analysis is meaningful at the group level, not the individual subject level.

    Conclusions:

    • Mega-trials, while powerful for detecting group effects, do not facilitate understanding at the individual level.
    • The methodology of mega-trials, prioritizing randomisation over maximal control, raises questions about their scientific nature.
    • Findings from mega-trials are repeatable but not strictly replicable, impacting their contribution to fundamental scientific understanding.