In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodmanny@gmail.com writes:
But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not specify--and almost none specified in the past. >>
That doesn't excuse us from stating it when it is specified. Standards change, and we change with them.
On 31 October 2010 21:07, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodmanny@gmail.com writes:
But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not specify--and almost none specified in the past. >>
That doesn't excuse us from stating it when it is specified. Standards change, and we change with them.
Actually, I don't see what the manufacturer paying for a study has to do with anything. At least in North America, and I am fairly certain in other Western countries, new drugs will not be approved by the regulatory agencies *unless* they have undergone extensive study, both clinical and non-clinical, and which *must* be paid for by the manufacturer, and then subjected to peer review. The only exceptions of which I am aware are for vaccines and certain "orphan" drugs. Most facilities that conduct clinical trials of drugs insist on up-front payment of all costs so that precious health care dollars are not spent on these studies, which often require additional testing that would not ordinarily be carried out (more blood tests, medical imaging, other studies, for example). All clinical trials in all accredited healthcare facilities in North America are cleared through one or more Research Ethics Boards as well.
So, saying that the manufacturer paid for a study insinuates that they have done something to affect the outcome of the study, whereas it is actually a requirement for them to pay for these studies in order to have the drugs considered for approval. It is the equivalent of automobile manufacturers having to pay to have their cars tested by various safety organizations.
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do with whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two are not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them, even with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
Risker/Anne
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
mentioned
it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do with whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two are not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them, even with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
Risker/Anne
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less enlightened.
Fred
On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
mentioned
it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do with whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two are not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them, even with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
Risker/Anne
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less enlightened.
Fred
I read it, Fred. And the subject of the thread was "should we be saying that the drug company paid for the research"; at least that's what it was when I commented.
My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research. Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
If there is a specific controversy related to the quality of the research that was done, or the manner in which it was conducted and/or reported, then *if there are reliable sources that discuss such a controversy*, that may be significant and/or relevant enough to add to the article.
Risker/Anne
One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
mentioned
it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down
on
that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do with whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two are not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them,
even
with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
Risker/Anne
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less enlightened.
Fred
I read it, Fred. And the subject of the thread was "should we be saying that the drug company paid for the research"; at least that's what it was when I commented.
My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research. Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
If there is a specific controversy related to the quality of the research that was done, or the manner in which it was conducted and/or reported, then *if there are reliable sources that discuss such a controversy*, that may be significant and/or relevant enough to add to the article.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Arlen Beiler arlenbee@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).
How were the manufacturer test results published?
-- John Vandenberg
--- On Mon, 1/11/10, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to
be changing the
subject. Peer review decides what is to be published,
based on quality
and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold
views as to what
that is at any particular time and venue which may be
more or less
enlightened.
Fred
I read it, Fred. And the subject of the thread was "should we be saying that the drug company paid for the research"; at least that's what it was when I commented.
My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research. Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
Studies are not only funded by drug companies themselves. Sometimes such research is undertaken by foundations, by neutral bodies, and even by competing manufacturers.
There are significant statistical differences between the results of manufacturer-funded studies, and those done by others.
Ethics standards in media and scholarly publishing have stated for many years that any conflicts of interest should be reported *as a matter of course*; there are further sources on this in the MEDRS talk page thread.
Andreas
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org