Selective Reporting and Unpublished Evidence

[tex]

Hi All,

As we all know, medical researchers, (aka puppets of the pharmaceutical companies), are prone to publishing only the facts that support the conclusions that have been predefined by the companies financing the research, (which are virtually always pharmaceutical companies, of course). Dr. Briffa recently blogged about that topic again, and he pointed out that the British Medical Journal is planning to do a special theme publication devoted to the issue of selective reporting, etc., later this year. They recently published a study about the accuracy of research publications concerning antidepressants. The basic details of the study were:

In this study, researchers assessed a total of 74 studies on antidepressant therapy that had been registered with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the USA. Some of these studies had been published, but many had not. The researchers obtained the unpublished studies via various means including the invoking of the freedom of information act.

Analysing the 74 studies, the researchers found that:

38 had positive results, and all but one of these had been published.

36 had negative results, and 22 of these had not been published at all.

Of the 36 negative studies, 11 had been published, but in a way that conveyed a positive outcome (this is not ‘publication bias’ by the way, just plain ‘bias’).

This meant that of all the published studies, 94 per cent appeared to have positive findings.

However, FDA analysis revealed that if all trials were taken into consideration, only half were positive in actuality.

Kudos to the BMJ for deciding to pursue this matter with additional studies. The BMJ seems to be much more inclined to reveal the ugly truth in this matter, than other medical publications. I can't help but wonder if the other prestigious medical publications are asleep at the wheel, or simply too well paid by Big Pharma to be doing anything that might "rock the boat".

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/04/29/brit ... -evidence/

Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

i think it depends on what country they are originating from

i note the British and Aussie based publications that have bucket loads of research projects NOT funded by big pharma. These publications do have a good range of research results about studies looking at diet, supplements for the improvement/treatment of a condition

I remember years ago there were some good results coming out about CoQ10 and how it could help various conditions, it hardly got published in the USA, but countries not in bed with Big Pharma did publish it.

Back in 2001 when i was doing chemo treatment for my boxer Penny, I was giving her max doses of CoQ10 and Vit E to help her body cope with the Chemo. The Vet was interested as he commented that she was doing quite well. I got the technical information for him, he commented that he had not seen this info, and i asked where do the meds come from and who does their ongoing teaching he replied "American Pharma companies" i said there is your answer....