Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Among large clinical trials funded by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 57% of those conducted before 2000 showed significant benefits, compared with 8% afterward, a statistically significant shift. The authors note the decline coincides with the introduction of pre-registration requirements and is not explained by industry co-sponsorship or comparator type.

Robert Kaplan and Veronica Irvin PLOS One
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

NHLBI clinical trials showing significant benefits have decreased from 57% before 2000 to 8% after 2000, a statistically significant shift.

Did pre-registration requirements reduce the share of clinical trials showing benefits?

Core argument: Large NHLBI clinical trials showed significant benefits in 57% of studies before 2000 but only 8% after 2000, a statistically significant shift (χ2=12.2, df=1, p=0.0005).

The proportion of NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute] clinical trials showing significant benefits has decreased significantly over time, with 57% of studies before 2000 showing benefits compared to only 8% after 2000. This shift is statistically significant (χ2=12.2, df=1, p=0.0005) and coincides with the introduction of pre-registration in clinicaltrials.gov, which emphasizes transparent reporting standards. The trend toward null findings is not influenced by industry co-sponsorship or the type of comparator used in trials. The decline in positive results post-2000 suggests that stricter reporting and outcome declaration requirements may have contributed to this trend, highlighting a shift in the landscape of clinical research and its implications for future medical and economic policies.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Large NHLBI clinical trials showed significant benefits in 57% of studies before 2000 but only 8% after 2000, a statistically significant shift (χ2=12.2, df=1, p=0.0005).
  2. The decline in positive NHLBI trial results coincides with the introduction of pre-registration in clinicaltrials.gov, whose stricter reporting and outcome declaration requirements may have contributed to the trend.
  3. The trend toward null findings in NHLBI trials is not influenced by industry co-sponsorship or the type of comparator used.

".... 17 of 30 studies (57%) published prior to 2000 showed a significant benefit of intervention on the primary outcome in comparison to only 2 among the 25 (8%) trials published after 2000 (χ2=12.2,df= 1, p=0.0005).There has been no change in the proportion of trials that compared treatment to placebo versus active comparator. Industry co-sponsorship was unrelated to the probability of reporting a significant benefit. Pre-registration in clinical trials. gov was strongly associated with the trend toward null findings....The number NHLBI trials reporting positive results declined after the year 2000. Prospective declaration of outcomes in RCTs, and the adoption of transparent reporting standards, as required byclinicaltrials.gov, may have contributed to the trend toward null findings...."

Robert Kaplan and Veronica Irvin, "Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time," PLOS One, August 5, 2015, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article