5 Questions: Ioannidis on the need to test medical 'truths'

January 6, 2012

(Medical Xpress) -- How many established standards of medical care are wrong? Disturbingly, no one knows for sure, but one study suggests that it could be almost half, according to a commentary published in the Jan. 4 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In many instances, physicians are prescribing treatments or therapies for which there is little or no evidence to support their use. And when evidence emerges that the harms posed by an established treatment may outweigh its benefits for certain patients, some physicians are reluctant to change the way they’ve practiced medicine during their careers.

John Ioannidis, MD, director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center and senior author of the JAMA commentary, believes it’s high time that do a reality check to determine which treatments have solid evidence behind them, and to “abandon ship” on those that don’t. This effort can be boosted, he said, by strengthening the standards for approving drugs and devices, working harder to remove bias from clinical trial design and limiting the role of the industry in funding clinical research. Ioannidis spoke with writer Susan Ipaktchian about the need to test established medical “truths.”

Q: Your commentary cites an alarming evaluation of 35 trials published in 2009 testing established clinical practices, which found a little less than half of those practices didn’t provide the stated benefit. What are the key reasons that so many of these practices don’t work?

Ioannidis: I think that many of these practices were adopted long ago based on thin or no evidence, and with high hopes rather than real data, and then they became entrenched in the system. In other cases, it is possible that these treatments worked when they were first adopted, but are no longer useful because of changes in the overall management of the disease, availability of other treatments and/or changes in the profile of patients being treated.

Q: Why are physicians unwilling to change their clinical practices when a new study shows that a specific treatment isn’t effective?

Ioannidis: I think this is because they are used to it, it forms an integral part of their practice: This is what they have learned to do, what they get paid to do and what they built their practice with. Sometimes the changes require physicians to redefine what they practice. One can’t change jobs easily.

Q: What can be done to motivate doctors to “abandon ship” on treatments that aren’t supported by strong evidence of effectiveness?

Ioannidis: It takes re-training and exposure to solid evidence against countering messages and advertising that try to maintain the status quo. Eliminating insurance reimbursement for these interventions would also make a difference. Similarly, regulatory agencies could help by revoking the licensing of these interventions when evidence shows that they are ineffective for specific indications

Q: Should patients be less trusting of the treatments suggested by their doctors?

Ioannidis: I would not wish the patient-physician relationship to be eroded; trust is essential. Trust is likely to be strengthened when patients are more knowledgeable, when they question their physicians about the evidence pertaining to their condition and when physicians give them the full, unbiased picture about this evidence.

Q: You mention that allowing companies to design clinical trials of their therapies and devices is like asking a painter to judge his or her own work for an award. Do you think the role of pharmaceutical and device companies in clinical trials should be limited?

Ioannidis: Pharmaceutical and device companies should be free to do early, high-risk R&D research, rather than be forced to cheat the system by designing in ways that will get the answer they want.

In the translational research framework, it is weird that T0 and T1 research (discovery) is funded by the public through governmental agencies, even though this research cannot directly and immediately harm or benefit people, while T2 and T3 research (clinical evaluation and implementation) is funded and controlled primarily by the industry. The public should control primarily the design and conduct of T2 and T3 research which has direct, major, immediate consequences for people’s health. The industry can contribute some funding toward a public-controlled pool for conducting impartial, randomized trials and can then shift their attention to basic discovery and innovation.

Explore further: Stanford researchers suggest ways for physicians to individualize cost-effectiveness of treatments

Related Stories

Stanford researchers suggest ways for physicians to individualize cost-effectiveness of treatments

July 12, 2011
In an era of skyrocketing health-care costs and finite financial resources, health economists are increasingly called upon to determine which medical treatments are the most cost-effective. To do so, they compare the price ...

Acute Stroke Therapy at Crossroads, Researchers Write

November 9, 2011
(Medical Xpress) -- Acute stroke therapy is at a crossroads, a University of Cincinnati (UC) researcher writes in a national medical journal, with clinical practice increasingly using approaches that have not been proven ...

Statin-intolerant patients need a different type of clinical trial

November 18, 2011
(Medical Xpress) -- Millions of people take statins, the blockbuster drug that lowers low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the so-called bad cholesterol. But as many as 20 percent of them develop adverse effects such as muscle ...

UCSF experts highlight need for innovation in recruiting participants for clinical trials

December 23, 2011
(Medical Xpress) -- In a commentary published in the November issue of Academic Medicine, top recruitment experts at UCSF urge academic medical researchers to embrace new methods for recruiting participants into clinical ...

Recommended for you

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

Team eradicates hepatitis C in 10 patients following lifesaving transplants from infected donors

April 30, 2017
Ten patients at Penn Medicine have been cured of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following lifesaving kidney transplants from deceased donors who were infected with the disease. The findings point to new strategies for increasing ...

'bench to bedside to bench': Scientists call for closer basic-clinical collaborations

March 24, 2017
In the era of genome sequencing, it's time to update the old "bench-to-bedside" shorthand for how basic research discoveries inform clinical practice, researchers from The Jackson Laboratory (JAX), National Human Genome Research ...

The ethics of tracking athletes' biometric data

January 18, 2017
(Medical Xpress)—Whether it is a FitBit or a heart rate monitor, biometric technologies have become household devices. Professional sports leagues use some of the most technologically advanced biodata tracking systems to ...

Financial ties between researchers and drug industry linked to positive trial results

January 18, 2017
Financial ties between researchers and companies that make the drugs they are studying are independently associated with positive trial results, suggesting bias in the evidence base, concludes a study published by The BMJ ...

Best of Last Year – The top Medical Xpress articles of 2016

December 23, 2016
(Medical Xpress)—It was a big year for research involving overall health issues, starting with a team led by researchers at the UNC School of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health who unearthed more evidence that ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.