What is already known on this topic
- Reporting bias exists across a variety of drug classes
- When unfavourable results of drug trials are not published, meta-analyses and systematic reviews that are based on only published data may overestimate the efficacy of drugs
What this study adds
- Addition of unpublished trial outcome data to published meta-analyses changed their results
- The direction of effect of including unpublished trial outcome data varied by drug and outcome
- Unpublished trial outcome data should be available and included in meta-analyses; this is particularly important as the effects of including unpublished data are not predictable
Graham
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7202?tab=full
More Here
http://www.npc.nhs.uk/rapidreview/?p=143
1 comment:
Shilling for Big Pharma:
"Not content to skew reports of clinical trials on the back end," Washington adds, "pharmaceutical companies also manipulate medical studies to generate the desired data for those reports." Common techniques include:
•Comparing their drug to a placebo.
•Comparing their drug to a competitor's medication in the wrong strength.
•Pairing their drug with one that is known to work well.
•Truncating a trial.
•Testing in very small groups.
"When physician-researchers are paid by the pharmaceutical industry," she reports, "their medical-journal findings exhibit clear bias in line with the interests of the sponsoring company."
Washington's article also spotlights the extent to which ghostwriting has infiltrated and corrupted medical journals, the subject of previous posts on this blog here and here.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201106/shilling-big-pharma-americas-medical-journals
Post a Comment