Editorial

Are there fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology?

Desmond Julian¹ and Curt Furberg²

¹  Netherall Gardens, London, UK

²  Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA

corresponding author email

Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine 2001, 2:1doi:10.1186/cvm-2-1-001

Published:	9 February 2001

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

Does size matter? Is big beautiful? The triumph of the megatrial suggests that this is so, but Bruce Charlton, in a provocative paper entitled 'Fundamental deficiencies in the megatrial methodology', challenges this current conventional wisdom [1]. He sides strongly with clinicians by pointing out that one purpose of clinical trials is to provide meaningful and useful information that could be easily translated into clinical practice.