October 7th, 2014
Another Reason for Open Access to Clinical Trial Data?
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM
In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial the investigators miscounted their endpoints and, last week, published a corrected version in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The discrepancies came to light, in part, because of litigation. The final results do not shift the interpretation of the trial, but should we be bothered that there was a need to correct this in response to litigation? Is this another reason to have data out in the open for others to review?
What is your reaction to this correction?
One Response to “Another Reason for Open Access to Clinical Trial Data?”
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Cardiology Articles- Sex-Based Disparity in CABG Outcomes: Are We Moving Toward Parity?
- Can Genetic and Social Risk Scores Improve Cardiac Risk Prediction?
- Extensive Ablation vs. Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
- Can a Novel Stent Design Improve Long-Term Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?
- Are Angiographically-Derived Coronary Physiology Measurements Ready for Use in the Cath Lab?
When people’s health, not to mention precious funds are at stake, it seems crazy that the worst thing you can do when making exaggerated or downright false claims on medical matters is getting caught. All out in the open. The only way as I see it.