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: 13371

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

Eliasson M, Bergqvist D.
[Research results should be freely accessible!-- Case reports demonstrate obstacles to contact with drug industry].
Lakartidningen 2001 Sep 12; 98:(37):3913-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586830


Abstract:

Recommendations on the use of medical technologies should be based on best available evidence. Publication bias due to delayed publication or non-publication of negative studies leads to inflated effect sizes in systematic reviews. We carried out a health technology assessment on prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, and in order to minimize publication bias asked the six pharmaceutical companies with antithrombotic drugs registered in Sweden to supply us with results from unpublished clinical trials. The answers were returned after 4 to 60 weeks, and with only one exception, after multiple reminders by telephone, fax and e-mail. No relevant unpublished studies were reported to us although we were made aware of two published studies that our literature search had not identified. One company did not mention a large negative unpublished clinical trial with their drug which has remained unpublished due to conflict between the company and the steering committee. We conclude that the companies did not contribute much and that the process was very time consuming with little result. As non-publication of trial results is unethical, we propose agreements between industry and researchers that all studies be prospectively registered and made publicly available.

mats.eliasson@nll.se

Keywords:
Publication Types: English Abstract MeSH Terms: Clinical Trials as Topic/standards Conflict of Interest Drug Industry* Fibrinolytic Agents/administration & dosage Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects Humans Peer Review, Research/standards Practice Guidelines as Topic* Publishing/standards Research/standards* Substances: Fibrinolytic Agents


Notes:

[Article in Swedish]

 

  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








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909