 |
 |
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