WHAT WE WORK ON
Compare what has never been compared before?
Drugs or medical interventions are usually compared head-to-head in randomized controlled trials to identify the better option for treatment….more
“White lies” in expert interviews- please me, please
In all topics related to medicine, expert interviews are extremely valuable to understand the complexly linked decisions that decide about the fate of medicines and medical devices in the market….more
Citing good news
Contrary to the public media, scientific authors seem to prefer good news over bad ones. They cite studies with positive results significantly more often than studies reporting to have found nothing new. Is this behaviour scientifically unsound?…more
Sharing clinical trial data – does it foster transparency or research parasitism?
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) plan for mandatory sharing of clinical trial data as prerequisite for publication in medical journals triggered mixed responses from the scientific community….more
Who’s not sharing their trial results?
The November 8 issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) features an article titled “60 seconds on TrialsTracker”. TrialsTracker is a website that reports the publication status of clinical trials registered within the last ten years on the ClinicalTrials** website….more
More precision by more digits?
Precision is always good, isn´t it? Especially in science, accurate and precise data and calculations are absolutely essential. But most of us might also have a feeling of “too much precision” when our pocket calculator presents us numbers with seven digits….more
Some thoughts about advisory boards
Are you involved in the organisation or conduction of advisory boards? If so, from time to time you may wonder whether the results are proportionate to the money and time invested….more
Where to find “real evidence”
An essay in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Alpers et al. (J R Soc Med 2015; 108: 8–10) titled “Evolution of evidence-based medicine to detect evidence mutations” seems to attach evolutionary mechanisms to a social phenomenon, an approach I deeply distrust as it results in such warped concepts as social Darwinism….more
How to assess/judge the relevance and quality of a metaanalysis
Assessing the relevance of a metaanalysis or any other systematic review, is no trivial task. Ultimately, its quality depends on the reliability of the included studies and a reasonable selection of studies for analysis….more
Hard endpoints – weak message?
Everybody wants them, few have them – the „hard endpoints“ in clinical studies. What are these “hard endpoints” and is being “hard” relevant for endpoints that are used for developing messages from studies?…more