Line | Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research |
could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler | |
clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, | |
researchers collect far more background information | |
(5) | on patients than is strictly required for their trials— |
substantially more than hospitals collect—thereby | |
escalating costs of data collection, storage, and | |
analysis. Although limiting information collection | |
could increase the risk that researchers will overlook | |
(10) | facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller |
contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from | |
research, would still be small in most studies. Only | |
in research on entirely new treatments are new and | |
unexpected variables likely to arise. | |
(15) | Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that |
researchers limit data collection on individual | |
patients but also that researchers enroll more | |
patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more | |
representative sample of the total population with | |
(20) | the disease under study. Often researchers restrict |
study participation to patients who have no ailments | |
besides those being studied. A treatment judged | |
successful under these ideal conditions can then be | |
evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the | |
(25) | range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller |
suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a | |
treatment’s efficacy for diverse patients under various | |
conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for | |
different patient subgroups. For example, the value | |
(30) | of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary |
according to a patient’s stage of disease. Patients’ | |
ages may also affect a treatment’s efficacy. |