corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 16316

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

Dubben H-H
New methods to deal with publication bias
BMJ 2009 Aug 26; 339:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/aug26_1/b3272


Abstract:

Published and retrievable reports of research do not necessarily represent the research performed, and some research findings never reach the consumer. Positive findings-or those that are perceived to be positive-are more likely to be published, and in more prestigious journals, than are negative findings.1 This so called publication bias is an important factor to consider when searching for data and using it to make evidence based decisions. In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2981), Moreno and colleagues test the performance of new methods of detecting and correcting for publication bias.2

Data collated for a meta-analysis can be investigated for possible missing studies using a funnel plot,2 3 on which Moreno and colleagues’ method is also based. It is a plot of effect size (for example, relative risk) versus the precision of a trial’s effect estimate (for example, number of patients or standard error). Typically, data points lie in a funnel shaped . . .

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963