Changes in trial guidelines in 2004 affected the assessment of statin efficacy.

“after that time increased regulations were placed on the way that trials are done on the way that side effects are reported and interestingly as part of my research for this podcast there is a real difference in the way that Staten trials look in terms of outcomes before and after 2004”

“well as you'll see in a moment data from after 2004 looks much less impressive than it did before 2004 but Amanda analysis pushes all of this together and we lose the details amongst all of the numerous studies that are being considered this is the problem this is a Nuance of a meta analysis that must be considered carefully though it's a good type of study because it's looking at more data it is also mixing trials potentially of varying qualities and I think that what we have to be aware of at this point is that historically with the massive change in the way that studies were done and the way that results were reported in that amount of time we must be very skeptical of this”

“before 2004 Statin trials made statins look like they were very effective for reducing cardiovascular disease Statin trials after 2004 do not look nearly as impressive”

“after that time increased regulations were placed on the way the trials are done on the the way that side effects are reported and interestingly as part of my research for this podcast there is a real difference in the way that Statin trials look in terms of outcomes before and after 2004.”

“in 2004 the basically the guidelines on running trials or the guidelines to setup trials had to be changed because they were there was an unfair uh kind of an unfair influence of pharmaceutical companies on the researchers and people doing the trials”