JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  August 2011

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH August 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Regulation, publication and pre-specification

From:

Michael Power <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael Power <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:54:01 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

Stephen, 

	" Case 4 is biasing and is outlawed in the regulatory framework."

What does outlawed mean in practice?

For example, Servier embroiled NICE in legal proceedings that lasted about 2
years. The argument was over differing interpretations of the risk of bias
in results from a subgroup analysis in a trial of strontium ranelate. NICE's
case boiled down to the fact that these analyses were not prespecified and
the age group was unusual - reading between the lines it seems that they
suspected that other subgroup analyses had been done and the most convenient
results selected for publication. Servier's main defence seemed to be that
they were asked to do this analysis by the regulator, EMA (European
Medicines Agency). If they gave NICE the original data to verify the
analyses and check other, more usual, age groups, I missed this in the
reports.

Michael


-----Original Message-----

From: Stephen Senn <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, 21 August 2011, 11:37
Subject: Re: Ezetimibe/Simvastatin

Multiplicity is tricky issue. I too do not believe in the mystic value of
pre-specification. Nevertheless evidentially there are some different
scenarios one can imagine.
1. Several outcomes were measured all were analysed and presented.
2. Several outcomes were measured all were analysed and presented and one
was prespecified.
3. Several outcomes were measured but only the pres-specified one was
presented and it was always known that this would be the case.
4. Several outcomes were measured and analysed but one that was not
pre-specified was presented.

For a third party I don't see much difference between 1 and 2 except perhaps
that 2 is indicative of some thinking by those who conducted the trial that
may be useful as secondary information. (However one may have to be very
careful in case 1 to avoid falling into the trap of only paying attention to
the most significant measure.) Case 3 I think is a shame because one would
like to know about the other measures but it is not biasing. Case 4 is
biasing and is outlawed in the regulatory framework. In fact there is at
least one case where the FDA has rapped the knuckles of the NEJM for
publishing a type 4 analysis.

So which was the case here?

Stephen


Stephen Senn

Professor of Statistics
School of Mathematics and Statistics
Direct line: +44 (0)141 330 5141
Fax: +44 (0)141 330 4814
Private Webpage: http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/home.html

University of Glasgow
15 University Gardens
Glasgow G12 8QW

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
________________________________________
From: Piersante Sestini
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 21 August 2011 03:36
To: Stephen Senn
Cc:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
C.UK>
Subject: Re: Ezetimibe/Simvastatin

On 20/08/2011 10.35, Stephen Senn wrote:
> Does anybody know if the endpoint was changed before or after unblinding
of the data?
> Stephen

This is an excellent point.
I don't believe in the mystic of a priori primary outcomes. As Ludwik Fleck
pointed out more than 70 years ago, we then shouldn't accept the discovery
of America, because Colombo's declared primary outcome was to get to India.
Thus, there is nothing wrong in reinterpreting the data to accept the
conclusions that they logically support, once they are fairly reported.

But here the point is different: it is that of a possible casuistic (in its
popular negative meaning) choice of an outcome based not on logic, but
possibly on reaching statistic "significance", which by itself does not
provide logic strength to the interpretation of the data, or on some other
untold reason.
The argument that to analyze the results  from a single carotid site is
faster than from three which were already measured and recorded is
ridiculous, and I think that should have been rejected. The two more likely
explanations that I see are a)results from that analysis "look better",
and/or  b)a form of auto-plagiarism: an attempt to maximize the number of
papers "produced" by the study (by publishing the other results in a
separate paper).
Both reasons are appealing both to the sponsor (to amplify the selling
points) and to the participating scientists (fattening the CV), and are a
consequence of a "pathological" mechanism of how the scientific literature
is evaluated and used.
I maintain that it is the journal editors that should guard about these
ethical misconducts. It makes no sense to require that clinical trials have
been pre-registered if their report is accepted without questioning whether
they are have been conducted and reported accordingly.
The problem is that journals have also an interest in publishing more
papers, particularly when they have a good chance of rise interest (and
sponsors do help with this), to be cited afterwards (increasing the IF of
the journal), or to raise income by selling reprints to drug companies.

Thus, with due exceptions, drug companies, clinical scientists (including
reviewers) and journals are largely in bed together, and breaking these
pathological mechanisms seems difficult. Open disclosure (in this case of
the reasons for the change in primary outcome, and when it occurred),  could
help.  Of course, your proposal of moving the publication of results of
clinical trials out of this business could also help, although with the
danger of creating one more dumb bureaucracy caring more about rules than
about logic. Nevertheless, while promoting a new journal that enforces
stricter rules for publication of clinical trials could be successful,
forbidding authors to submit to other journals is not simple.

The worst thing is that many call this process "evidence-based medicine",
and any effort to explain to the practitioners and the community that EBM is
a different thing that suffers, rather than cause, these problems would be
valuable.



  regards,
Piersante Sestini

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager