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: 11628

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

Kauffman JM.
Bias in Recent Papers on Diets and Drugs in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Spring 2004; 9:(1):11-14
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/kauffman.pdf


Abstract:

Recent efforts by medical journal staffs to improve the quality of research papers have had mixed results. Examples are given to show that randomized, placebocontrolled trials are not free from bias and that the failure to include all-cause death rates can be extremely misleading, as can the use of relative risks in the absence of absolute risks. Other examples show how the conclusions in an abstract may not agree with the data in the body of the paper, or do not tell the whole truth. Still others use false surrogate endpoints or faulty trial protocols to favor a desired outcome. The whole picture may be seen as a breakdown of the peer-review system.

 

  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