Oops - apologies to Nuria and anyone else who was mystified by me
leaving out the references
Here they are:
BMJ papers:
Editorial: Missing clinical trial data
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d8158
Top 6 papers in the list of related content:
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d8158?tab=related
Jama paper
Reversals of Established Medical Practices: Evidence to Abandon Ship
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/1/37.extract
Michael
On 1/5/12, Nuria Homedes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Can you please share the reference of the JAMA and BMJ papers? thanks. Nuria
>
>
>
>>From: Michael Power <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: "[log in to unmask]"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sender: "Evidence based health (EBH)"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 03:03:49 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Reversals of Established Medical Practices: Evidence to
>> Abandon
>> Ship
>>Thread-Topic: Reversals of Established Medical Practices: Evidence to
>> Abandon Ship
>>Thread-Index: AczLkWQbS7AramgtTuiHRs21jTlUkA==
>>List-Help:
>> <http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?LIST=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH>,
>>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>List-Subscribe:
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>List-Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Michael Power <[log in to unmask]>
>>Accept-Language: en-US
>>X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous
>>X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: itdsrvhub01.utep.edu
>>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>>X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>x-ironport-anti-spam-filtered: true
>>x-ironport-anti-spam-result:
>>
>>AusAAGZ0BU+C9sA4kWdsb2JhbABDDqxmCCIBAQEBCQsLBxQFIIFyAQEBBAEBAQgHAhcbDggkAQEGAQEKCw0uAxwDAQwBBAEFAQMBGBkFHYdgmFkKi2cKhxs/iHiMEQSKSIIsiBKGQoc8PTyDBzc
>>list-archive:
>> <http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?LIST=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH>
>>x-scanned-by: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 130.246.193.104
>>list-owner: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>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
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > The information in this E-mail and any documents and files transmitted
>> > with
>> > it are confidential and for the use of the intended recipient only. If
>> > you
>> > are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and statements
>> > immediately and notify the sender. Any
>> unauthorised dissemination or copying
>> > of this E-mail, or any misuse or wrongful disclosure of the information
>> > contained in it, is strictly prohibited and may be illegal.
>> >
>
>
|