While this may not lead to a list, this link may lead to some useful
sources on this topic.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=
%22ineffective+treatments%22+OR+%22unsafe+treatments%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39
.
A shorter URL for the above link:
.
http://tinyurl.com/78lw7kp
.
.
Here are a few others:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ineffective%20treatments%22%
20OR%20%22unsafe%20treatments%22&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp
.
A shorter URL for the above link:
.
http://tinyurl.com/75lesfu
.
.
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22ineffective+
treatments%22+OR+%22unsafe+treatments%22&t=all&sort=0&g=s
.
A shorter URL for the above link:
.
http://tinyurl.com/7oxtejr
.
.
Temple Summon Search
http://temple.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.cmd=
setHoldingsOnly(false)&s.fvf=ContentType,Newspaper+
Article,t&s.pn=1&s.q=%22ineffective+treatments%22+OR+
%22unsafe+treatments%22
.
A shorter URL for the above link:
.
http://tinyurl.com/8xfqydp
.
.
Also of possible interest to some members of this group:
Faculty Credentialing
https://sites.google.com/site/facultycredentialing/
.
.
Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
[log in to unmask]
http://daviddillard.businesscard2.com
Net-Gold
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/net-gold
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/net-gold.html
Index: http://tinyurl.com/myxb4w
http://groups.google.com/group/net-gold?hl=en
General Internet & Print Resources
http://guides.temple.edu/general-internet
COUNTRIES
http://guides.temple.edu/general-country-info
EMPLOYMENT
http://guides.temple.edu/EMPLOYMENT
TOURISM
http://guides.temple.edu/tourism
DISABILITIES
http://guides.temple.edu/DISABILITIES
.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Dr. Amy Price wrote:
> “Continuing practices that have been shown to be ineffective or unsafe
> is outrageous, and regularly provokes outbreaks of ire and umbrage in
> this forum and the better journals. Paul Glasziou himself has said in
> this forum that there is a very long list of ineffective treatments, but
> the longest list I have seen has 5 entries. Why is there no research
> project to publish a list of ineffective or unsafe treatments?”
> (Powers,2012)
> I like this idea a lot particularly considering Ben’s qualifier. I think
> if those on the list submitted a few useless and dangerous treatments
> and a reference we would have a list in no time. I think instead what I
> see often is one group calling the other’s intervention useless with
> weak evidence instead of a focus on what actually doesn’t work at all. A
> list like this could be a public service especially if published via
> Open Access...
> From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Djulbegovic, Benjamin
> Sent: 05 January 2012 09:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Reversals of Established Medical Practices: Evidence to Abandon Ship
> Dear Michael & Ash,
> i have been long mulling over these issues. Re the point made in the
> JAMA piece (and long noted by John Ioannidis and others), the answer can
> probably be found in the writing of philosphers of science. Thomas Kuhn
> (and many others) made a point that "truth" alone never wins; it is
> change in norms, values, new practices etc that eventually determine the
> "paradigm shift". As Max Planck famously said that one has to await for
> all scientific enemies to die before new ideas become accepted...
> Re large number of health care interventions that could be disinvested,
> I think the problem is not so that these interventions are ABSOLUTELY
> AND ALWAYS useless. The problem is that they are approved (probably
> validly) for one sorts of indications, and then in a response to
> clinical uncertainties indication creep takes over, and we have the
> current situation. As long as practice of medicine is seperated from the
> regulatory practices for drug approval (and I am not arguing that it
> should be?), we will have continue to witness a tremendous waste in
> practice of medicine (as false positives are so much easy to swallow
> than false negatives).
> best
> ben
>
> From: Michael Power [[log in to unmask]]
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:03 AM
>
> To: Ash Paul; Djulbegovic, Benjamin
>
> Cc: Evidence based health (EBH)
>
> Subject: Re: Reversals of Established Medical Practices: Evidence to Abandon Ship
>
>
>
> Thanks Ash
>
>
>
> I had spotted the BMJ collection and the JAMA paper, which provides a
>
> seldom heard opinion that "there are thousands of clinical trials, but
>
> most deal with trivialities or efforts to buttress the sales of
>
> specific products". (I must say that I think the JAMA authors are a
>
> few decimal points out in their estimation of the number of clinical
>
> trials.)
>
>
>
> The contrast between the BMJ papers and the JAMA paper makes me think
>
> that obviously outrageous stuff draws attention away from much bigger
>
> but boring problems.
>
>
>
> Eg 1: Selecting data for publication or suppressing data from
>
> publication is outrageous, and pollutes the literature. But I suspect
>
> that the world would be a better place if 99% of the papers indexed in
>
> Medline were to vanish. Identifying the 1% to preserve and the 99% to
>
> censor is a dull, hard, unrewarding problem, so no-one thinks about
>
> it. Iain Chalmers' and Paul Glasziou's advice to avoid perpetuating
>
> the problem seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
>
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19525005
>
> (behind a $€£wall)
>
>
>
> Eg 2: Continuing practices that have been shown to be ineffective or
>
> unsafe is outrageous, and regularly provokes outbreaks of ire and
>
> umbrage in this forum and the better journals. Paul Glasziou himself
>
> has said in this forum that there is a very long list of ineffective
>
> treatments, but the longest list I have seen has 5 entries. Why is
>
> there no research project to publish a list of ineffective or unsafe
>
> treatments? Why don't the holders of the healthcare purse strings
>
> commission someone to build such a list? Perhaps the problem is harder
>
> and more boring than it looks at first sight. NICE claim to have
>
> identified "over 800 clinical interventions for potential
>
> disinvestment". But, when they looked a little deeper they concluded
>
> "there are few obvious candidates for total disinvestment; antibiotics
>
> and diagnostics predominate".
>
> This blank seems to have discouraged NICE from pursuing the matter.
>
>
>
> http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4519#
>
> (might be behind a $€£wall)
>
>
>
> Eg 3. Most research and scholarly work is behind a high paywall. But
>
> only George Monbiot and Ben Goldacre find this outrageous --- *irony
>
> alert* I am slightly exaggerating the general apathy to highlight the
>
> fact that the general level of concern is really not up to the level
>
> of the problem.
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> On 1/4/12, Ash Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ben and Michael,
>
> > Presumably you have seen this recent JAMA article.
>
> > Also this week's BMJ articles on missing clinical trial data is worth
>
> > reading in full.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ash
|