Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reporting and Interpreting of Results

  • Chapter
Fundamentals of Clinical Trials

Abstract

The final phase in any experiment is to interpret and report the results. Finding the answer to a challenging question is the goal of any research endeavor. Proper communication of the results to clinicians also provides the basis for advances in medicine [1]. To communicate appropriately, investigators have to review their results critically and avoid the temptation to overinterpret benefit or underreport harm. They are in the privileged position of knowing the quality and limitations of the data better than anyone else. Therefore, they have the responsibility for presenting the results clearly and concisely, together with any issues that might bear on their interpretation. Investigators should devote adequate care, time and attention to this critical part of the conduct of clinical trials. We believe that a policy of “conservative” interpretation and reporting best serves science, public health, clinical medicine, and the interests of readers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Comroe JH Jr. The road from research to new diagnosis and therapy. Science 1978;200:931–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Glantz SA. Biostatistics: how to detect, correct and prevent errors in the medical literature. Circulation 1980;61:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Relman AS. What a good medical journal does. The New York Times March 19, 1978; Section IV; p.22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ellenberg SS, Epstein JS, Fratantoni JC, et al. A trial of RSV immune globulin in infants and young children: the FDA view. N Engl J Med 1994;331:203–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Mahaffey KW, et al. Effect of platelet inhibition with cangrelor during PCI on ischemic events. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1303–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. FDA Briefing Document Addendum for the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/drugs/cardiovascularandrenaldrugsadvisorycommittee/ucm385235.pdf

  7. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Altman DG, Schulz KD, Moher D, et al, for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. PLoS Med 2010; 7 (3): e1000251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. CONSORT Statement. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/overview0/#checklist

  11. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, et al, for the CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006;295:1152–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594–2604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetziaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000097.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 2005;26:480–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Spall HGC, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 2007;297:1233–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. Special Report: Statistics in medicine – reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2189–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication (updated December, 2013) http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

  19. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Is this clinical trial fully registered?: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/clinical-trials-registration/.

  20. Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Godlee F. All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ 2013; 346:f105 doi;10.1136/bmj.f105.

  21. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, et al. A study on the use and usefulness of online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ad hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:598–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, et al. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huth EJ. Preparing to write. In: How to write and publish papers in medical sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1982, p.37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Huth EJ. Guidelines for authorship of medical papers. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meinert CL. In defense of the corporate author for multicenter trials. Control Clin Trials 1993;14:255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gøtzsche PC, Hrobjartsson A, Johansen HK, et al. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib. JAMA 2008;299:1800–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326:1171–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Altman DG, Furberg CD, Grimshaw JM, Shanahan DR. Editorial: Linked publications from a single trial: a thread of evidence. Trials 2014:15:369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, et al. Editorial: Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. N Engl J Med 2009; http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMe0909052.pdf?resourcetype=HWCIT

  32. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Editorial: Resolving unreported conflicts of interest. JAMA 2009;302:198–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Weinfurt KP, Seils DM, Tzeng JP, et al. Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents. PLoS One 2008; 3:e2128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berry G. Statistical significance and confidence intervals. Med J Aust 1986;144:618–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence interval rather than p-values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J 1986;292:746–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Simon R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:429–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bulpitt CJ. Confidence intervals. Lancet 1987;i:494–497.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Braitman LE. Confidence intervals extract clinically useful information from data. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:296–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Freeman PR. The role of p-values in analyzing trial results. Stat Med 1993;12:1443–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Braitman LE. Statistical estimates and clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 1993;3:249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pocock SJ, Ware JH. Translating statistical findings into plain English. Lancet 2009;373:1926–1928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wulff HR, Anderson B, Brandenholf P, Guttler F. What do doctors know about statistics? Stat Med 1987;6:3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, et al. How to keep up with the medical literature. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:149-153, 309-312, 474-478, 636-640, 810-816, 978-984.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moon TE. Interpretation of cancer prevention trials. Prev Med 1989;18:721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fowkes FGR, Fulton PM. Critical appraisal of published research: introductory guidelines. Br Med J 1991;302:1136–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK. Evaluating the medical literature. Ann Emerg Med 1993;12:549-555, 610-620, 679-686.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature: I. How to get started. JAMA 1993;270:2093–2095.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ., for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guide to the medical literature: II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention: A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270:2598–2601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials. A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Evans M, Pollock AV. Trials on trial. A review of trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg 1984;119:109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987;317:426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med 1982;1:59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomization and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990;335:149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tonkin K, Tritchler D, Tannock I. Criteria of tumor response used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:870–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Baar J, Tannock I. Analyzing the same data in two ways: a demonstration model to illustrate the reporting and misreporting of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:969–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1728–1733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 1992;92:121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med 1992;117:916–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from test of significance -- or vice versa. J Am Stat Assoc 1959;54:30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: The problem that won’t go away. Ann N.Y. Acad Sci 1993;703:135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1987;4:1529–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Chan A-W, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005;330:753. Epub 2005 Jan 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Chan A-W, Hrόbjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457–2465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Turer AT, Mahaffey KW, Compton KL, et al. Publication or presentation of results from multicenter clinical trials: evidence from an academic medical center. Am Heart J 2007;153:674–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schüler Y-B, Kӧlsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research-a narrative review. Trials 2010;11:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Gordon D, Taddei-Peters W, Mascette A, Antman M, Kaufmann PG, Lauer MS. Publication of trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1926–1934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, et al. Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:1957–1960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vedula SS, Li T, Dickersin K. Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med 2013;10(1):e1001378, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Goldman L, Loscalzo A. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med 1980;303:255–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Dickerson K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987;8:343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990;263:1385–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gøtzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J 1987;295:652–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Marshall T, Evans S. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp Clin Trials 2005;26:331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009;e1000144. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144.

  80. Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ 2011;344:d7373 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Friedman L. Commentary: Why we should report results from clinical trial pilot studies. Trials 2013;14:14:doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-14.

  82. Sackett DL. Turning a blind eye: why we don’t test for blindness at the end of our trials. BMJ 2004;328:1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sackett DL. Commentary: Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: don’t, must, can’t or needn’t? Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:664–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Schultz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Fergusson D. Comment: CONSORT 2010 changes and testing blindness in RCTs. Lancet 2010;375:1144–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, et al. Ascorbic acid for the common cold: a prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA 1975;231:1038–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Report from the Committee of Principle Investigators. A cooperative trials in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate. Br Heart J 1978;40:1069–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c3920 doi:10.1136/bmj.c3920.

  88. Marantz PR, Alderman MH, Tobin JN. Diagnostic heterogeneity in clinical trials for congestive heart failure. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Packer M. Clinical trials in congestive heart failure: why do studies report conflicting results. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Ray WA, Weiss NS. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA 2004;292:2622–2631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Fineberg HV. Clinical evaluation: how does it influence medical practice? Bull Cancer 1987;74:333–346.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Collins R, Julian D. British Heart Foundation surveys (1987 and 1989) of United Kingdom treatment policies for acute myocardial infarction. Br Heart J 1991;66:250–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Lamas GA, Pfeffer MA, Hamm P, et al. Do the results of randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs influence medical practice? N Engl J Med 1992;27:241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Manolio TM, Cutler JA, Furberg CD, et al. Trends in pharmacologic management of hypertension in the United States. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:829–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” Lancet 2005;365:82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. National Institutes of Health Public Access. http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

  97. Zarin DA, Tse T. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science 2008;319:1340–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Gøtzsche PC. Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it. Trials 2011;12:249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Mello MM, Francer JK, Wilenzick M, Teden P, Bierer BE, Barnes M. Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1651–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Eichler H-G, Pétavy F, Pignatti F, Rasi G. Access to patient-level trial data—a boon to drug developers. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1577–1579.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Krumholz HM. The Opinion Pages: Give the data to the people. The New York Times February 2, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Zarin DA. Participant-level data and the new frontier in trial transparency. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:468–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Specks U, Merkel PA, Seo P, et al. Efficacy of remission-induction regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2013;369:417–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Nisen P, Rockhold F. Access to patient-level data from GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:475–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Barron H. Letter to the editor: Access to patient-level trial data. N Engl J Med 2014;370:485–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/

  107. Summary of HHS/NIH proposals to enhance transparency of Clinical trial results. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2014/od-19_summary.htm.

  108. Hudson KL, Collins FS. Viewpoint: Sharing and reporting the results of clinical trials. JAMA 2015;313:355–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. European Medicines Agency policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/10/WC500174796.pdf

  110. Institute of Medicine Committee on Strategies for Responsible Sharing of Clinical Trial Data. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Bethesda, MD, USA

    Lawrence M. Friedman

  2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Curt D. Furberg

  3. Department Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    David L. DeMets

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    David M. Reboussin

  5. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Christopher B. Granger

Authors
  1. Lawrence M. Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Curt D. Furberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David L. DeMets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David M. Reboussin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher B. Granger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Friedman, L.M., Furberg, C.D., DeMets, D.L., Reboussin, D.M., Granger, C.B. (2015). Reporting and Interpreting of Results. In: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18539-2_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation