Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings | BMJ
Vergüenza ética: Ensayos clínicos invisibles y abandonados
No se puede menos que pensar en las personas, los seres humanos, que participaron en estos ensayos clínicos invisibilizados y abandonados. La industria farmacéutica ¿puede seguir teniendo el cinismo de apelar al altruísmo para incrementar el reclutamiento?
Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings
BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2865 (Published 13 June 2013)
BMJ 2013;346doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2865(Published 13 June 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2865
“Two basic problems of representation are driving growing concerns about relying on published research to reflect the truth. The first is no representation (invisibility), which occurs when a trial remains unpublished years after completion. The second is distorted representation (distortion), which occurs when publications in medical journals present a biased or misleading description of the design, conduct, or results of a trial. Both go against the fundamental scientific and ethical responsibility that all research on humans be used to advance knowledge and are symptomatic of a general culture of data secrecy. The end result is that the healthcare, biomedical research, and policy communities may, despite best intentions and best practices, end up drawing scientifically invalid conclusions based on only those parts of the evidence base they can see.“
Autores
Analysis
Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings
Cite this as:BMJ2013;346:f2865
This article has a correction
- Peter Doshi, postdoctoral fellow1,
- Kay Dickersin, professor, director234,
- David Healy, professor of psychiatry5,
- S Swaroop Vedula, postdoctoral fellow6,
- Tom Jefferson, researcher7
- Correspondence to: P Doshi, Reed Hall West, Room 201-C, 1620 McElderry Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA pdoshi@post.harvard.edu
- Accepted 5 April 2013
Well designed and well performed randomised controlled trials are considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effects of health related interventions. However, the credibility of findings from individual trials and from summaries of trials examining a similar research question (that is, systematic reviews and meta-analyses) has been undermined by numerous reporting biases in the published medical literature.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Reporting biases are often difficult to detect, but have the potential to discredit earnest efforts towards evidence based decision making.
Two basic problems of representation are driving growing concerns about relying on published research to reflect the truth.10 15 The first is no representation (invisibility), which occurs when a trial remains unpublished years after completion. The second is distorted representation (distortion), which occurs when publications in medical journals present a biased or misleading description of the design, conduct, or results of a trial.1 6 10 14 Both go against the fundamental scientific and ethical responsibility that all research on humans be used to advance knowledge and are symptomatic of a general culture of data secrecy. The end result is that the healthcare, biomedical research, and policy communities may, despite best intentions and best practices, end up drawing scientifically invalid conclusions based on only those parts of the evidence base they can see.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario