A Clinical Trial is Not a Clinical Trial
Results from a study assessing how clinical trial quality is monitored in the U.S. reveal a variety of monitoring approaches, the choice of which appears to relate to the type of organizational sponsor for the trial. Furthermore, the rationale behind any specific monitoring approach does not appear to be evidence-based, raising the possibility that there could be more effective and efficient ways to ensure the reliability of clinical trial results and patient safety. This possibility suggests potential for addressing the current high costs and complex nature of clinical trial conduct.
See more.
This post does not inspire a lot of confidence.
I agree with Vicki. I don’t know what to make of this.
There are so many clinical trials being conducted that many of them don’t fill up with enough eligible patients. Increasingly, clinical trials are held abroad where the cost is often cheaper.
I like the idea of a peer review mechanism for clinical trials whereby other scientists can report clinical trials gone awry. You would have to build in a mechanism whereby concealment of improper techniques impacted the reputation of the certifying scientist, but, in general, I think it’s the best and cheapest alternative to outside review.