1. Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism
Abstract
"Introduction:
It is suspected that Web 2.0 web sites, with a lot of user-generated content, often support viewpoints that link autism to vaccines.
Methods:
We assessed the prevalence of the views supporting a link between vaccines and autism online by comparing YouTube, Google and Wikipedia with PubMed. Freedom of speech is highest on YouTube and progressively decreases for the others.
Results:
Support for a link between vaccines and autism is most prominent on YouTube, followed by Google search results. It is far lower on Wikipedia and PubMed. Anti-vaccine activists use scientific arguments, certified physicians and official-sounding titles to gain credibility, while also leaning on celebrity endorsement and personalized stories.
Conclusions:
Online communities with greater freedom of speech lead to a dominance of anti-vaccine voices. Moderation of content by editors can offer balance between free expression and factual accuracy. Health communicators and medical institutions need to step up their activity on the Internet.”
It is suspected that Web 2.0 web sites, with a lot of user-generated content, often support viewpoints that link autism to vaccines.
Methods:
We assessed the prevalence of the views supporting a link between vaccines and autism online by comparing YouTube, Google and Wikipedia with PubMed. Freedom of speech is highest on YouTube and progressively decreases for the others.
Results:
Support for a link between vaccines and autism is most prominent on YouTube, followed by Google search results. It is far lower on Wikipedia and PubMed. Anti-vaccine activists use scientific arguments, certified physicians and official-sounding titles to gain credibility, while also leaning on celebrity endorsement and personalized stories.
Conclusions:
Online communities with greater freedom of speech lead to a dominance of anti-vaccine voices. Moderation of content by editors can offer balance between free expression and factual accuracy. Health communicators and medical institutions need to step up their activity on the Internet.”
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25665960
Citation
Venkatraman, Anand, Neetika Garg, and Nilay Kumar. "Greater Freedom of Speech on Web 2.0 Correlates with Dominance of Views Linking Vaccines to Autism." Vaccine 33.12 (2015): 1422-425. Web.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25665960
Citation
Venkatraman, Anand, Neetika Garg, and Nilay Kumar. "Greater Freedom of Speech on Web 2.0 Correlates with Dominance of Views Linking Vaccines to Autism." Vaccine 33.12 (2015): 1422-425. Web.
2. Preserving Intellectual Freedom in Clinical Medicine
Abstract
“An eminent clinician of the past century, John A. Ryle, summarized the social responsibilities of the physician as follows: ‘ The life and work of the physician proceed under the direction of three main influences: the scientific, the humane, and the ethical. Whereas other men of science have, until now, found it possible to pursue their intellectual tasks without reference to human need and without regard for ethical considerations other than those immediately connected with the pursuit of the truth and respect for colleagues, the medical man has carried a far heavier and more complex burden of responsibility. He has had and has now in ever-increasing measure – and in the addition to the consideration which he owes to himself and his dependants – a special duty to his patients, to the community, to his colleagues, and to his science or calling’ [ 1 , p. 101]. These are values which Robert G. Petersdorf echoed 4 decades later, in 1989: ‘ We can no longer tolerate the dishonesty, cheating, fraud, and conflict of interest that have invaded science and medicine. By choosing these professions we have assumed a trust that is predicated upon integrity. We must not deviate from it’ [ 2 , p. 123]. Halstead R. Holman, in a paper published in Hospital Practice in 1976 [3] , which anticipated some of the developments in health care over the following 4 decades, observed that ‘the medical establishment is not primarily engaged in the disinterested pursuit of knowledge into medical practice; rather in significant part it is engaged in special interest advocacy, pursuing and preserving social power. The concept of excellence is a component of the ideological justification of that role’ [ 3 , p. 11]. Holman identified a decline in intellectual freedom as a major source of the ‘excellence deception’, which perpetuates prevailing practices, deflects criticism and insulates the profession from alternative views and social relations that would illuminate and improve health care. There are indeed increasing threats to the preservation of intellectual freedom in clinical medicine.”
Link
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/162295
Citation
Fava, Giovanni A. "Preserving Intellectual Freedom in Clinical Medicine." Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 78.1 (2009): 1-5.
“An eminent clinician of the past century, John A. Ryle, summarized the social responsibilities of the physician as follows: ‘ The life and work of the physician proceed under the direction of three main influences: the scientific, the humane, and the ethical. Whereas other men of science have, until now, found it possible to pursue their intellectual tasks without reference to human need and without regard for ethical considerations other than those immediately connected with the pursuit of the truth and respect for colleagues, the medical man has carried a far heavier and more complex burden of responsibility. He has had and has now in ever-increasing measure – and in the addition to the consideration which he owes to himself and his dependants – a special duty to his patients, to the community, to his colleagues, and to his science or calling’ [ 1 , p. 101]. These are values which Robert G. Petersdorf echoed 4 decades later, in 1989: ‘ We can no longer tolerate the dishonesty, cheating, fraud, and conflict of interest that have invaded science and medicine. By choosing these professions we have assumed a trust that is predicated upon integrity. We must not deviate from it’ [ 2 , p. 123]. Halstead R. Holman, in a paper published in Hospital Practice in 1976 [3] , which anticipated some of the developments in health care over the following 4 decades, observed that ‘the medical establishment is not primarily engaged in the disinterested pursuit of knowledge into medical practice; rather in significant part it is engaged in special interest advocacy, pursuing and preserving social power. The concept of excellence is a component of the ideological justification of that role’ [ 3 , p. 11]. Holman identified a decline in intellectual freedom as a major source of the ‘excellence deception’, which perpetuates prevailing practices, deflects criticism and insulates the profession from alternative views and social relations that would illuminate and improve health care. There are indeed increasing threats to the preservation of intellectual freedom in clinical medicine.”
Link
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/162295
Citation
Fava, Giovanni A. "Preserving Intellectual Freedom in Clinical Medicine." Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 78.1 (2009): 1-5.
3. Prevalence of Industry Support and Its Relationship to Research Integrity
Abstract
“Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research.”
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353387
Citation
Tereskerz, Patricia M., Ann B. Hamric, Thomas M. Guterbock, and Jonathan D. Moreno. "Prevalence of Industry Support and Its Relationship to Research Integrity." Accountability in Research 16.2 (2009): 78-105.
“Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research.”
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353387
Citation
Tereskerz, Patricia M., Ann B. Hamric, Thomas M. Guterbock, and Jonathan D. Moreno. "Prevalence of Industry Support and Its Relationship to Research Integrity." Accountability in Research 16.2 (2009): 78-105.
4. Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study
Abstract
“Objectives
To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents.
Design
Cross sectional study.
Data sources
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Selection criteria
Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials.
Results
Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed.
Conclusions
Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.
Link
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5155
Citation
Roseman, M., E. H. Turner, J. Lexchin, J. C. Coyne, L. A. Bero, and B. D. Thombs. "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest from Drug Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Cross Sectional Study." Bmj 345.Aug16 3 (2012)
“Objectives
To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents.
Design
Cross sectional study.
Data sources
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Selection criteria
Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials.
Results
Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed.
Conclusions
Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews.
Link
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5155
Citation
Roseman, M., E. H. Turner, J. Lexchin, J. C. Coyne, L. A. Bero, and B. D. Thombs. "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest from Drug Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Cross Sectional Study." Bmj 345.Aug16 3 (2012)
5. Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments
Abstract
“Context
Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs.
Objective
To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs.
Data Sources and Study Selection
We selected the 3 most recent metaanalyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Data Extraction
Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each metaanalysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs.
Results
Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 metaanalyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, authorindustry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. “
Conclusion
Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21386079
Citation
Roseman, Michelle. "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments." Jama 305.10 (2011): 1008.
“Context
Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs.
Objective
To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs.
Data Sources and Study Selection
We selected the 3 most recent metaanalyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Data Extraction
Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each metaanalysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs.
Results
Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 metaanalyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, authorindustry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. “
Conclusion
Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21386079
Citation
Roseman, Michelle. "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments." Jama 305.10 (2011): 1008.
6. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Abstract
“There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”
Link
http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf
Citation
Ioannidis, John P. A. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." PLoS Medicine 2.8 (2005)
“There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”
Link
http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf
Citation
Ioannidis, John P. A. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." PLoS Medicine 2.8 (2005)
7.
Abstract
“CONTEXT:
To date, research regarding the influence of conflicts of interest on the presentation of findings by researchers has been limited.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the sources of funding for published manuscripts, and association between reported findings and conflicts of interest.
METHODS:
Data from both print and electronic issues of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) were analyzed for sources of funding, areas of investigation, conflict of interest (COI), and presentation of results. We reviewed all original manuscripts published during the year 2001 within NEJM (N = 193) and JAMA (N = 205). We use 3 definitions for COI in this paper: a broadly defined criterion, the criterion used by The International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and a criterion defined by the authors.
RESULTS:
Depending on the COI criteria used, 16.6% to 32.6% of manuscripts had 1 or more author with COI. Based on ICMJE criterion, 38.7% of studies investigating drug treatments had authors with COI. We observed a strong association between those studies whose authors had COI and reported positive findings (P < .001). When controlling for sample size, study design, and country of primary authors, we observed a strong association between positive results and COI (ICMJE definition) among all treatment studies (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 5.09) and drug studies alone (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.39).
CONCLUSION:
COI is widespread among the authors of published manuscripts and these authors are more likely to present positive findings.”
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/
Citation
Friedman, Lee S., and Elihu D. Richter. "Relationship between Conflicts of Interest and Research Results." Journal of General Internal Medicine 19.1 (2004): 51-56.
“CONTEXT:
To date, research regarding the influence of conflicts of interest on the presentation of findings by researchers has been limited.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the sources of funding for published manuscripts, and association between reported findings and conflicts of interest.
METHODS:
Data from both print and electronic issues of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) were analyzed for sources of funding, areas of investigation, conflict of interest (COI), and presentation of results. We reviewed all original manuscripts published during the year 2001 within NEJM (N = 193) and JAMA (N = 205). We use 3 definitions for COI in this paper: a broadly defined criterion, the criterion used by The International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and a criterion defined by the authors.
RESULTS:
Depending on the COI criteria used, 16.6% to 32.6% of manuscripts had 1 or more author with COI. Based on ICMJE criterion, 38.7% of studies investigating drug treatments had authors with COI. We observed a strong association between those studies whose authors had COI and reported positive findings (P < .001). When controlling for sample size, study design, and country of primary authors, we observed a strong association between positive results and COI (ICMJE definition) among all treatment studies (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 5.09) and drug studies alone (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.39).
CONCLUSION:
COI is widespread among the authors of published manuscripts and these authors are more likely to present positive findings.”
Link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494677/
Citation
Friedman, Lee S., and Elihu D. Richter. "Relationship between Conflicts of Interest and Research Results." Journal of General Internal Medicine 19.1 (2004): 51-56.