Conexiant
Login
  • Corneal Physician
  • Glaucoma Physician
  • New Retinal Physician
  • Ophthalmology Management
  • Ophthalmic Professional
  • Presbyopia Physician
  • Retinal Physician
The Ophthalmologist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Anterior Segment
    • Glaucoma
    • Retina

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Cataract
    • Cornea
    • Glaucoma
    • Neuro-ophthalmology
    • Oculoplastics
    • Pediatric
    • Retina
  • Business

    Business & Profession

    • Professional Development
    • Business and Entrepreneurship
    • Practice Management
    • Health Economics & Policy
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

Advertisement
The Ophthalmologist / Issues / 2015 / Sep / Exploring Ophthalmology’s Orchard
Research & Innovations

Exploring Ophthalmology’s Orchard

Across medicine, far fewer clinical trials report positive results these days. Whether the demise of sharp scientific practices or the lack of low-hanging fruit – does it apply to ophthalmology?

By Mark Hillen 9/7/2015 1 min read

Share

Across medicine, far fewer clinical trials report positive results these days. Whether the demise of sharp scientific practices or the lack of low-hanging fruit – does it apply to ophthalmology?

A recent study on the impact that the introduction clinicaltrials.gov has made on the reporting of clinical trial results got me thinking (1). Clinicaltrials.gov was created thanks to a US law passed in 1997 that required all researchers (from the year 2000 onwards) to pre-specify the methods they were going to employ in the trial – and the outcomes they were going to measure. Why did the US government mandate this? At the time, some companies were being accused of commissioning many small trials, but only reporting the ones with positive results – or cherry-picking data by switching out a trial’s primary endpoint evaluation post hoc to a secondary one that gave better results. But how much of this was hyperbole by the pharma industry’s critics?

It’s reasonable to assume that the impact of clinicaltrials.gov on the number of trials displaying positive results is a good marker of how fairly the pharmaceutical industry had been treated. According to the aforementioned study, the launch of clinicaltrials.gov fifteen years ago did have had a striking impact on the proportion of favorable trial results reported – but not in the way you might think. The study authors examined 55 large clinical trials of cardiovascular disease interventions published between 1970 and 2012. An impressive 57 percent of those studies performed before the year 2000 reported positive effects; after 2000, it dropped to just 8 percent. Pretty damning, until you realize that a US government body (the National Heart Lung, and Blood Institute) funded all 55 trials. I suppose that raises two questions. First, has mandatory and open registration of clinical trials (and its associated scrutiny) halted a massive phenomenon of cherry-picking? Perhaps. Or second, has it stopped sloppy scientific methods that previously led to immense false positive bias? Possibly. But I believe it’s mostly down to the disappearance of low-hanging fruit as we neared the turn of the millennium. This was certainly the case for cardiovascular disease where, by 1970, the first β-blocker had only recently been discovered, and commercially available statins and angiotensin inhibitors were still over a decade away. The big wins were won well before 2000, and patients entering clinical trials by that date were better treated, making it harder for a new drug to beat standard of care. However, I don’t think that the low-picking fruit argument applies to ophthalmology. We’re still in the new blockbuster phase for many drugs, and of course devices (like MIGS stents) are always going to be disruptive to pharmacotherapies. I therefore wonder if a similar analysis in ophthalmology might tell a different story

References

  1. RM Kaplan, VL Irvin, “Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time”, PLoS One, 10, e0132382. PMID: 26244868.

About the Author(s)

Mark Hillen

I spent seven years as a medical writer, writing primary and review manuscripts, congress presentations and marketing materials for numerous – and mostly German – pharmaceutical companies. Prior to my adventures in medical communications, I was a Wellcome Trust PhD student at the University of Edinburgh.

More Articles by Mark Hillen

Related Content

Newsletters

Receive the latest Ophthalmology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

False

Advertisement

False

Advertisement

Explore More in Ophthalmology

Dive deeper into the world of Ophthalmology. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement
The Ophthalmologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.

Disclaimer

The Ophthalmologist website is intended solely for the eyes of healthcare professionals. Please confirm below: