| 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. |