Advertisement

New lessons favoring physicians' support of clinical trials

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      The publications of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial have produced different opinions concerning the therapeutic implications of their results. However, they provide new lessons concerning the design of clinical trials and the ethical implications of this research. Their experiences clearly illustrate the scientific requirements for controlled clinical trials and clarify the ethical validity of future investigations for medical researchers and the medical profession.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Veatch RM
        Justice and research design: the case for a semi-randomization clinical trial.
        Clin Res. 1983; 31: 12-22
        • Weinstein MC
        Allocation of subjects in medical experiments.
        N Engl J Med. 1974; 291: 1278-1286
        • Zelen M
        A new design for randomized clinical trials.
        N Engl J Med. 1979; 300: 1242-1245
        • Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group
        Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program: I. Reduction in mortality.
        JAMA. 1979; 242: 2562-2571
        • Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group
        Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program: II. Mortality by race, sex and age.
        JAMA. 1979; 242: 2572-2577
        • Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group
        Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program: III. Reduction in stroke incidence.
        JAMA. 1982; 247: 633-638
        • Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group
        Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: risk factor changes and mortality results.
        JAMA. 1982; 248: 1465-1477
        • Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group
        The effect of treatment on mortality in “mild” hypertension.
        N Engl J Med. 1982; 307: 976-980
        • Sacks H
        • Chalmers TC
        • Smith H
        Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials.
        Am J Med. 1982; 72: 233-240
        • Chalmers TC
        • Celano P
        • Sacks HS
        • Smith H
        Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials.
        N Engl J Med. 1983; 309: 1358-1361
        • Levy RI
        Clinical trials: are the benefits worth the costs?.
        Clin Res. 1982; 30: 116-122
        • Kolata G
        Heart study produces a surprise result.
        Science. 1982; 218: 31-32
        • McAlister NH
        Should we treat mild hypertension?.
        JAMA. 1983; 249: 379-382
        • Pickering TG
        Treatment of mild hypertension and the reduction of cardiovascular mortality: the ‘of or by’ dilemma.
        JAMA. 1983; 249: 399-400
        • Ram CVS
        Should mild hypertension be treated?.
        Ann Intern Med. 1983; 99: 403-405
      1. Lancet. 1982; II (Editorial): 803-804
        • Oliver MF
        Should we not forget about mass control of coronary risk factors?.
        Lancet. 1983; II: 37-38
        • Oslo Study Research Group
        MRFIT and the Oslo study.
        JAMA. 1983; 249: 893-894
        • Toth PH
        • Horwitz RI
        Conflicting clinical trials and the uncertainty of treating mild hypertension.
        Am J Med. 1983; 75: 482-488
        • Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group
        The Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program.
        Prev Med. 1976; 5: 207-215
        • Kuller L
        • Neaton J
        • Caggiula A
        • Falvo-Gerard L
        Primary prevention of heart attacks: the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1980; 112: 185-199
        • Adams F
        2nd ed. The genuine works of Hippocrates. Vol II. William Wood, New York1886: 279
        • Byar DP
        • Simon RN
        • Friedewald WT
        • et al.
        Randomized clinical trials.
        N Engl J Med. 1976; 295: 74-80
        • Giertz G
        Ethics of randomized clinical trials.
        J Med Ethics. 1980; 6: 55-57
        • Spodick DH
        The randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Am J Med. 1982; 73: 420-425
        • Schafer A
        The ethics of the randomized clinical trial.
        N Engl J Med. 1982; 307: 719-724
        • American Medical Association
        Current opinions of the Judicial Council of the American Medical Association.
        American Medical Association, Chicago1981 (citation IX)
        • Uberia KK
        Randomized clinical trials: why not?.
        Controlled Clin Trials. 1981; 1: 295-303