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: 17856

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: news

Joelving F
Negative research often spun to look good: study
Reuters 2010 May 25
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O6JW20100525


Abstract:

Scientists are no strangers to spinning their research, a new study — presumably not spun — shows.


Full text:

More than half of 72 reports examined by French and British researchers had dressed up their conclusions to make it seem as if new treatments were beneficial, even though they weren’t according to the statistics in the report.

For instance, one study concluded a cancer detection system worked, but couldn’t back it up with actual results, Dr. Isabelle Boutron, who worked on the study, told Reuters Health.

“Some of it was quite shocking,” said Boutron, of the Universite Paris Descartes in France, adding that not all the examples were as glaring.

Earlier research has shown that findings are often spun when money is involved — for instance when a drug maker funds a study of its own product. In such cases, favorable conclusions may directly contradict the actual results.

But the spin is often subtle and may even slip by experts reviewing the scientific article. This was true for Vioxx, a pain drug launched and later recalled by Merck, Boutron and her colleagues note.

When a clinical study was published in 2000 comparing Vioxx with an older drug, the authors downplayed the risk of heart attack: Instead of reporting the five-fold increase in risk, they chose to frame it as a protective effect of the older drug.

Although she didn’t examine the motives behind the spin, Boutron found several dubious strategies to misrepresent data. Researchers would try to focus on only positive parts of their analysis, or compare patients before and after they received a treatment, without noting how patients responded to placebo. Because the placebo response can be quite powerful, particularly in psychiatry, this can easily distort research findings.

“I’m sure most of the authors weren’t cheating, they were just very enthusiastic about their results,” Boutron said. But she added that she has become more suspicious when she reads academic articles, and that journals should pay more attention to research spin.

“I supposed it will change the way I review papers,” she said.

SOURCE: here

JAMA/Journal of the American Medical Association, May 26, 2010.

 

  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








You are going to have many difficulties. The smokers will not like your message. The tobacco interests will be vigorously opposed. The media and the government will be loath to support these findings. But you have one factor in your favour. What you have going for you is that you are right.
- Evarts Graham
See:
When truth is unwelcome: the first reports on smoking and lung cancer.