I tend to agree with Senn- his analysis support our work on the topic. On AVERAGE, the industry does technical aspects of the job better than academia. It is also quite possible that the choice of the comparator or other aspects of the conduct and analysis where bias can easily be introduced may be controlled by the regulator more than it has been appreciated so far. The only solution indeed is mandatory trial registration and the trial protocol disclosure (so that, all interested parties may comment on the plan of the design, conduct and the analysis, well before the accrual has started). Did I also read "All researchers (and supposedly sponsors) must agree to SHARE DATA as a condition of publication"? This is indeed tantamount to the "dream coming true", but as long as data are treated as proprietary items of the sponsors (rather than belonging to the public/patients) this is likely not to happen any time soon. (NB After almost 20 years since the first calls for mandatory trials registration were made, this has not happened yet).
Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD,PhD
Professor of Oncology and Medicine
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
at the University of South Florida
Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology
SRB #4, Floor 4, Rm #24031 (Rm# West 31)
12902 Magnolia Drive
Tampa, FL 33612
Editor: Cancer Treatment Reviews (Evidence-based Oncology Section)
http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/ctrv/
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~bdjulbeg/
phone:(813)979-7202
fax:(813)979-3071
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Janet Hiller
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 6:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re EBM
Dear all
The books by Angell, Kassirer, Abramson and the article by Smith on the
influence of big Pharma on medical journals provide considerable cause for
concern.
There is however an alternate view - at least about the quality of
research/statistical analysis of work conducted with the sponsorship of
pharmaceutical industry. I chanced upon the following talk from Stephen Senn
(who is a contributor to this list)- that raised questions for me about the
sources of information I regard as squeaky clean.
http://www.wtcrf.ed.ac.uk/education/Talks/Stephen%20Senn%202June%202005.pdf
I would be interested in the response of other members of this list to the views
expressed in this talk
Janet E. Hiller, PhD
Professor and Head, Department of Public Health
Director, Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA)
Mail drop 207
University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA
Australia 5005
+ 61 8 8303 3573 (ph) +61 8 8223 4075 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
http://www.public-health.adelaide.edu.au
-----------------------------------------
###########################################################################
## This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and
is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by anyone else
is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby notified that any
review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this information, or
any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately. Thank you. #########################################
####################################
|