Summary: Few trials have stirred our imagination—and kept online forums as busy—as the TACT trial. With this controversial study as a backdrop, Drs Bob Harrington and Daniel Mark address the complicated issue of how to interpret unexpected findings. Can we clinical trialists claim to be as open to trial results as we think we are? Or is there something inherent in our pathophysiologic-based system of beliefs that limits our perception of disease? Learn more about the colorful background of TACT and why our reactions to the trial might be indicative of cracks in our approach to research.
