Healthy Skepticism Library item: 12363

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Noble JH Jr.
Delve deeper to find the links.
BMJ 2008 Jan 12; 336:(7635):59
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/336/7635/59

Abstract:

The finding by Yank et al of no connection between results in meta-analyses and financial ties is surprising,1 given the greater deficiencies for reporting of harm outcomes among trials that were solely funded by industry (median 56% per trial) than among trials that were not (27%).2 Evidently the Oxman-Guyatt measure of scientific quality of research reviews used by Yank et al cannot capture discrepancies in original research protocols and their published form and the selective reporting of outcomes, both of which are prevalent in randomised trials.2

Firstly, bias in reporting outcomes acts in addition to and in the same direction as publication bias of entire studies to produce inflated estimates of the effects of treatment.2

Secondly, the antidote is to require registration of all trials and protocols in the public domain before completing the study and to assure that they be made available along with any manuscript undergoing peer review