H2H leader Harlan Krumholz, FACC, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on the value of negative studies on research. He writes:

Negative studies -- the ones that fail to find that one therapy is superior to another -- usually do not elicit much excitement. Scientific studies with breakthrough results establishing the effectiveness of something new tend to get all the attention, while those that fail to find the hoped-for results are often ignored. ...

Rather than a letdown, the failure to find an advantage in an expensive strategy opens the door to doing less and spending less without worsening patient care -- and in some cases improving it. It's simply the case that many popular medical strategies have little or no rigorous scientific evidence of their effectiveness regarding patient outcomes.

Harlan makes some valid points. While new breakthrough trials are certainly most exciting, clearly, value resides in trials that provide evidence against existing therapies so that we can be ever-improving the quality of care we offer to patients. I think that not only will publishing and paying attention to negative studies help, so will comparative effectiveness research. This research will put popular treatments head-to-head so we can know how they truly compare. If the strategy that “wins” in these trials actually involves less treatment, our health system will be all the better for it (given its current out-of-control cost spiral). However, given the relatively limited funding available for comparative effectiveness research, it will be crucial that the strategy be combined with greater respect, and publication of, negative studies.

< Back to Listings