This study of hype in press releases will change journalism | Science News

This study of hype in press releases will change journalism | Science News: "The most important thing to remember is that there are people, and sometimes patients, waiting on the end of the news cycle. “I wouldn’t be doing [healthnewsreviews.org] if I didn’t think that these kinds of messages and misleading conclusions and observations and statements made in many news releases have the potential — and indeed I think that potential is realized — of hurting people at the end of the food chain,” Schwitzer says. Everyone in the news cycle bears responsibility, in the end, for getting it right."



'via Blog this'

Exaggeration in health science news releases - exaggerations communicated by reporters are frequently already present in press releases put out by academic institutions

Exaggeration in health science news releases & what we're going to do about it: "“For me, the takeaway from this study is that there are multiple messengers to blame when it comes to exaggeration in health care news stories. As we’ve shown at HealthNewsReview.org, journalists often need to do a better job of vetting scientific research in their stories. But according to these results, the exaggerations communicated by reporters are frequently already present in press releases put out by academic institutions. This suggests that press officers who write the releases, and the researchers who collaborate on them, are also key players when it comes to the promotion of misinformation.

The study authors make a great point, which is that if academic institutions are the ones initiating the introduction of misleading claims, then there’s a tremendous opportunity for them to improve the quality of health care news if they can change their ways. I think our new effort to review news releases will help with that transition, because it provides a level of accountability that’s been missing until now. I’m really excited to see that our instincts about the need for this service are being emphatically confirmed by these results.”"



'via Blog this'

Evidence based medicine is broken | The BMJ

"How many people care that the research pond is polluted,5 with fraud, sham diagnosis, short term data, poor regulation, surrogate ends, questionnaires that can’t be validated, and statistically significant but clinically irrelevant outcomes? Medical experts who should be providing oversight are on the take. Even the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Cochrane Collaboration do not exclude authors with conflicts of interest, who therefore have predetermined agendas.6 7 The current incarnation of EBM is corrupted, let down by academics and regulators alike.8"



http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g22

"the standards for the evidence are often low and tainted by commercial or personal interests"

In the eyes of doctors and the public, evidence-based medicine is the gold standard of clinic practice. If it’s based on evidence from trials and laboratories, it must be right.

However, evidence-based medicine has its critics, as a bilious outbreak of comment and letters in the BMJ demonstrated recently. Early last month a Glasgow GP, Des Spence, said that the system of EBM had been corrupted. “If we don’t tackle the flaws of EBM there will be a disaster, but I fear it will take a disaster before anyone will listen,” he wrote. 

How could anyone fault the notion of treatment based on scientifically validated evidence? No one. But the critics of EBM argue heatedly that the standards for the evidence are often low and tainted by commercial or personal interests. Dr Spence accuses drug companies of
manipulating the gold standard to their own benefit. “Today EBM is a loaded gun at clinicians’ heads. ‘You better do as the evidence says,’ it hisses, leaving no room for discretion or judgment. EBM is now the problem, fueling overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”
A number of letters pointed out that, while EBM had its flaws, doctors still need to exercise their clinical judgement. They write the prescriptions, not the drug companies.
Dr Spence was supported by Dr Miran Epstein, a medical ethicist at The London School of Medicine. He writes that “EBM “does not regard polluted information, whether it involves misconduct or not, as a sufficient condition for rendering disclosure inadequate. Thus, it lets informed consent degenerate into a legal fiction and the principle of autonomy into a cynical farce. Worst of all, it is perfectly ethical: being the codified expression of the collective conscience of our medicine, it naturally purports to be moral.” 

And he was supported by lawyer and ethicist Charles Foster, writing in the Practical Ethics blog. He believes that the editors of journals need the help of a regulator to sift the wheat from the chaff. “Journals can’t do it all. We need a cynical, skeptical, well-funded, well-staffed and ideologically very left-wing regulator. With huge teeth.” 

Evidence-based medicine comes under attack
by Michael Cook | 8 Feb 2014 |
tags: commercialization, evidence-based medicine
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10841 

Publication bias distorting evidence base, systematic reviews and clinical guidelines

For decades, the systematic review of published randomised controlled trials has been considered the gold standard in medical research, and this was what the original Cochrane reviewers did.

By combining data from all published trials on a particular subject, researchers are able to see effects in much larger numbers of people than would typically be included in a single trial, in theory making their conclusions more powerful.

In theory. The problem in reality is a small thing called publication bias.

Some trials are simply more likely to be published than others, potentially skewing the results of this kind of meta-analysis.

MJA InSIght, Monday, 14 October, 2013

Jane McCredie: Sharing evidence

"pharma giant used fictitious patient quotes to promote its fluticasone product"

"GLAXOSMITHKLINE is among three companies to be fined for breaches of Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct after the pharma giant used fictitious patient quotes to promote its fluticasone product, Seretide.

MA said in its July–September quarterly report that the Code of Conduct committee dealt with allegations by Mundipharma that GSK’s promotional material on Seretide was false and misleading.

The committee said that while publishing fictitious patient quotes is itself a breach of the code, GSK had exacerbated its breach by placing the statements in quote marks beside the image of a young woman. 

“GSK had agreed during intercompany dialogue to make clear that the statements were not from real patients,” the committee said."

Medical Observer, 

False claims: Pharma companies fined

Warwick Stanley  3rd Nov 2014

“In no other area than Sympathetic Surgery, disagreement, conflicting opinion, different definitions and misleading interpretations of the data exist"

8th ISSS Symposium New York, 2009: 

“In no other area than Sympathetic Surgery, disagreement, conflicting opinion, different definitions and misleading interpretations of the data exist. Mainly regarding surgical indications, the level and extent of the procedure and results evaluation”.

ATS Expert Consensus for the Surgical Treatment of Hyperhidrosis powerpoint presentation  – October 6, 2012, XVI Congreso Boliviana de Cirugia Cardiaca, Toracica y Vascular, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.

http://cirugiadetorax.org/2012/10/09/vats-sympathectomy-for-hyperhidrosis-dr-jose-ribas-de-milanez-de-campos/

or:

https://archive.today/Q047q

medical procedures are misrepresented in the media

"If your patients rely on the mainstream media for medical advice, they may well think that cancer has been cured many times over, and have other inflated views about the benefits of new treatments and tests.

AND they probably would be shocked to learn about the potential downsides of many medical interventions, let alone costs.

That’s the conclusion of a comprehensive analysis of almost 2000 medical news items published in the US by print, online and television outlets between 2006 and 2013.

It was undertaken by the media watchdog Health News Review, and recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine (5 May, 2014). Most stories were judged unsatisfactory in how they covered the costs, benefits, harms and quality of the evidence supporting the new treatment or test, and how it was compared to alternatives.

“Drugs, medical devices, and other interventions were usually portrayed positively; potential harms were minimised and costs were ignored,” wrote the founder of Health News Review, Gary Schwitzer."

Melissa Sweet, Medical Observer, 24th Jun 2014

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/



Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science. By David H. Freedman"



https://archive.today/bSQNG

Pharma marketing impacts on junior doctor prescribing

JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Association of Marketing Interactions With Medical Trainees’ Knowledge About Evidence-Based Prescribing:  Results From a National Survey: "A 10-point higher industry relations index was associated with 15% lower odds of selecting an evidence-based prescribing choice (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) (P < .001). There was also a significant association between the industry relations index and greater odds of choosing to prescribe brand-name drugs (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) (P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among physician trainees, our survey showed an association between positive attitudes toward industry-physician interactions and less knowledge about evidence-based prescribing and greater inclination to recommend brand-name drugs. Policies intended to insulate trainees from pharmaceutical marketing may promote better educational outcomes."

most of the existing literature is geared towards assessing only the effectiveness of the surgical sympathectomy

"Given the fact that most of the existing literature is geared towards a) assessing only the effectiveness of the surgical sympathectomy procedures, and b) publishing only studies with positive results, adverse effects and complications are not systematically reported but rather as a secondary outcome. It seems, therefore, highly likely that the complications as reported here, are truly underestimated.



The study indicates that surgical sympathectomy, irrespective of operative approach and indication, may be associated with many and potentially serious complications."



Are We Paying a High Price for Surgical Sympathectomy? A Systematic Literature Review of Late Complications

http://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900%2800%2944124-6/abstract

Antiviral drug stockpile a waste of money, says study | smh.com.au

Antiviral drug stockpile a waste of money, says study | smh.com.au: "Governments around the globe may have wasted billions of dollars stockpiling antiviral drugs to use against an influenza pandemic, according to a damning review drawing on previously suppressed data.
Australia was one of several countries to stockpile the drugs known as Tamiflu and Relenza, believing they would reduce hospital admissions and complications of influenza, such as pneumonia, in the event of an outbreak of swine or bird flu.
But a review of data from trials involving more than 24,000 people, published on Thursday by the Cochrane Collaboration and the British Medical Journal, concluded the drugs were of only marginal benefit, shortening the duration of influenza symptoms by just half a day.
The review found no good evidence that the drugs prevented the spread of the virus between people, or any of its serious consequences, such as infections. It found Tamiflu increased the risk of psychiatric disturbances, renal problems, nausea, vomiting and headaches."



'via Blog this'

US scientists were “accomplices after the fact” in Japanese doctors’ war crimes

BioEdge: US scientists were “accomplices after the fact” in Japanese doctors’ war crimes: "A fascinating answer appears in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. The broad outline of the story has been well documented, even if it is not widely known. To cut a long story short, the Americans struck a deal with the doctors. They traded immunity from prosecution for access to scientific information from the ghastly Japanese experiments – many of which are too grim to detail here. (If you have the stomach for it, a remorseful doctor describes, at the age of 90, some of his vivisection experiments in an article in the Japan Times.)

A report from US scientists who interviewed the staff of Unit 731 and the surviving records concluded that “Such information could not be obtained in our own laboratories because of scruples [sic] attached to human experimentation"



'via Blog this'

BioEdge: The scandal of wasted research dollars

BioEdge: The scandal of wasted research dollars: "Twenty years ago, a British statistician complained in the BMJ that much medical research was “seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.” 

Today, says the BMJ’s former editor, the influential writer Richard Smith, the only word to be changed in that diagnosis is probably “much”. It should now be “most”. And he complains that the leaders of the medical profession are not interested in changing the situation."



'via Blog this'

Evidence based medicine is broken - BMJ

Des Spence cites “poor regulation” as one of the phenomena that compound the profit-driven pollution of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM).[1] He is not alone. This conception seems to be gaining in popularity.[2,3]

Indeed, the current regulation is handmaiden to the polluters, as this partial list of examples indicates:

• The regulation does not demand that the research agenda be driven strictly by patient needs, not corporate interests.
• It is silent about the adequacy of selection criteria, outcome measures, and statistical significance, three variables that are often used by the polluters to manipulate evidence.
• It says nothing about what should count as scientific and unscientific research. This lacuna allows the latter to take place too, provided, of course, that it labels itself as "scientific".
• The regulation introduces exceptions to the head-to-head rule, exceptions that allow the polluters to test every new drug against placebo or no treatment thereby showing us exactly what they want: efficacy, but not necessarily over the current treatment.[4]
• It does not ban regulators, health care institutions and medical professionals from having financial conflicts of interest. Worse than that, "transparency", the only thing it insists on and quite feebly so, gives both the doctor and the patient nothing but the misleading impression that they can make a truly informed choice.
• The regulation does not ban subject recruitment through financial incentives, a practice capable of introducing outcome bias.
• It does not ban seeding trials, i.e., marketing exercises concealed as scientific research.
• It does not ban manipulative advertising to both doctor and patient inside or outside "scientific" journals.
• It does not ban medicalisation and “me too” drugs.
• It does not regard polluted information, whether it involves misconduct or not, as a sufficient condition for rendering disclosure inadequate. Thus, it lets informed consent degenerate into a legal fiction and the principle of autonomy into a cynical farce.[5]
• Worst of all, it is perfectly ethical: being the codified expression of the collective conscience of our medicine, it naturally purports to be moral.

In light of these examples we should ask ourselves: If the polluters of medical knowledge can tick the ethical box, then what does that say about our ethic?

Having said that, the notion of poor ethic-regulation can be both misleading and self-defeating if it is taken to entail that an ethical-regulatory change could help purify EBM. This is not only false. It actually plays to the hands of the polluters.

The belief that there must be some truly humanistic ethic-regulation out there that could help purify EBM is totally absurd. As long as our medicine depends financially on and must buy its tools from the polluters — in short, as long as it remains under their thumb — it will reject such an ethic-regulation wholesale or, more dangerously, co-opt it to suit their interests. There can be no other option. If we wish to have a truly humanistic ethic, we should get ourselves a truly humanistic medicine first.

1 Spence D. Evidence based medicine is broken. BMJ 2014;348:g22.

2 Goldacre B. Bad Pharma. London:Fourth Estate, 2012.

3 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. London:Redcliffe, 2013.

4 WMA Declaration of Helsinki 2013; pt. 33.

5 Epstein M. Legal and institutional fictions in medical ethics: a common, and yet largely overlooked, phenomenon. J Med Ethics 2007;33(6):362-364.

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g22/rr/680463

BioEdge: Evidence-based medicine comes under attack

BioEdge: Evidence-based medicine comes under attack: "evidence-based medicine has its critics, as a bilious outbreak of comment and letters in the BMJ demonstrated recently. Early last month a Glasgow GP, Des Spence, said that the system of EBM had been corrupted. “If we don’t tackle the flaws of EBM there will be a disaster, but I fear it will take a disaster before anyone will listen,” he wrote.

How could anyone fault the notion of treatment based on scientifically validated evidence? No one. But the critics of EBM argue heatedly that the standards for the evidence are often low and tainted by commercial or personal interests."

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10841

Does removing breast cancer affect survival?

Allow me to make an assertion: breast cancer survival is not influenced by surgical excision of the primary tumour. This goes against the prevailing wisdom that cancer is cured by removing it, but that kind of thinking is simplistic and at odds with much of the evidence. Lets walk through that evidence.

There is a theory that breast cancer is a systemic, rather than a local disease, and that local control (by surgery) does not influence the course of the disease regarding its ability to cause death. The common thinking about breast cancer is that it starts in the breast and spreads such that if you remove it early, and completely, you can be cured. This is the basis of breast cancer screening, but as I have discussed before, there is debate about whether screening reduces one’s risk of dying.

more:

http://doctorskeptic.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/does-removing-breast-cancer-affect.html