Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pre-study odds (R) for phase III clinical trials is approximately 1, meaning that in about 50% of the time the drugs that make it to these trials are more effective than the current gold standard treatment.
“Data suggest that the R for phase III clinical trials is approximately 1, meaning that in about 50% of the time the drugs that make it to these trials are more effective than the current “gold standard” treatment (18).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [18]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 66
- Authors
- Djulbegovic, B., Kumar, A., Glasziou, P., Miladinovic, B., & Chalmers, I.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- Bond University (AU)
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2013-08-21
- Volume
- 500
- Issue
- 7463
- Pages
- 395-396
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC3819120
- OpenAlex
- W2022323519
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 7.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ns044417-02)
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA133594, R01CA140408)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS044417, R01NS052956)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- clinical trial design, treatment efficacy, drug development
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Uncertainty, Biomedical Research, Drug Discovery, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Therapeutic Equipoise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
