Detecting bias in the reporting of clinical trials

August 19, 2009

A study by researchers at the University of Leicester has revealed new ways to spot whether medical research has hidden biases. Writing in the prestigious British Medical Journal, Santiago Moreno and his colleagues demonstrate how to spot 'publication bias' in the reporting of clinical trials which potentially form the basis of Government and NHS health policies. They also show what mathematical adjustments can be made to remove such unintended distortion of data.

Health policies are founded on 'clinical trials': experiments done in a laboratory or with groups of patients, which produce statistical results (because no two individuals are alike). Experimental results are published in medical journals after being thoroughly checked to ensure that all the methods used were fair and accurate - but 'publication bias' can affect what gets published.

For example, trials with negative results - showing that a treatment doesn't work - may be less likely to be published than those showing that it does. And this can create a distorted view of the treatment's effectiveness when policy-makers have to decide on whether it is worthwhile.

The University of Leicester researchers- examined two new methods of statistical analysis, using data on anti-depressant use available from the United States' (FDA). The FDA's data is considered 'gold standard' - free from bias - so it can be used to check whether statistics collected from journals, when adjusted, provide a true picture.

Both methods investigated by the Leicester team proved effective in identifying and eliminating publication bias from medical research.

Santiago's colleagues in the research project were Professor Alex Sutton, Professor Keith Abrams and Dr Nicola Cooper, from the Department of Health Sciences, plus collaborators at the Universities of Bristol and Oregon.

Source: University of Leicester (news : web)

Explore further: Just how useful are animal studies to human health?

Related Stories

Just how useful are animal studies to human health?

December 15, 2006

Animal studies are of limited usefulness to human health because they are of poor quality and their results often conflict with human trials, argue researchers in a study on bmj.com today.

Half of trials supporting FDA applications go unpublished

September 23, 2008

Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished 5 years after approval, says new research published in this week's PLoS Medicine. The most important trials determining efficacy, and those with ...

Extensive publication bias for Phase I drug trials

February 18, 2009

A study published in this week's issue of the open-access journal PLoS Medicine suggests that, in comparison to other types of trials, the results of Phase I drug trials are far less likely to be published.

Recommended for you

How the finch changes its tune

August 3, 2015

Like top musicians, songbirds train from a young age to weed out errors and trim variability from their songs, ultimately becoming consistent and reliable performers. But as with human musicians, even the best are not machines. ...

Machine Translates Thoughts into Speech in Real Time

December 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.