Scientists 'put positive spin' on breast cancer studies
Jeremy Laurance is a writer on health issues. He is former health editor of The Independent and the i and has covered the specialism for more than 20 years. He thinks the harm medicine does is under-appreciated, the harm it prevents over-rated, and that cycling works better than most drugs. He was named Specialist Journalist of the Year in the 2011 British Press Awards.
Thursday 10 January 2013
Scientists involved in breast cancer research tend to exaggerate the positives and underplay the negatives of their findings, a new study suggests.
As a result, patients may be given treatments that are less effective than claimed and with worse side-effects than reported.
In two-thirds of the reports studied, the scientists played down the nastiest side-effects of their trials, especially where the treatments also showed significant benefits.
The team, from Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada, say they found no influence from sponsors of breast cancer trials, whether in the drug industry or in academic institutions.
But they note that "the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly influential in clinical trial sponsorship". Over the past 30 years, the number of phase 3 trials (final testing) sponsored by the industry has risen from 24 per cent to 72 per cent, they say.
One explanation for the findings is that scientists want to be noticed, they say. Positive results get more attention than negative findings and are more likely to be cited in the scientific literature, which is important for boosting scientific careers.
Professor Ian Tannock, who led the study, said: "Better and more accurate reporting is urgently needed. Journal editors and reviewers, who give their expertise on the topic, are very important in ensuring this happens."
Richard Francis, research manager at the UK charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: "We strongly believe that making clinical trial data freely available would decrease the potential for 'spin' by allowing more researchers to investigate the results.
"This will ensure trials are accurately assessed by regulatory bodies, allow comparisons with other studies and prevent duplication of trials."
- 1 Autism 'caused by genetics', study suggests
- 2 What happens to your body when you give up sugar?
- 3 Why you should never make assumptions about people with autism
- 4 Tourist films plane's descent just metres above packed Caribbean beach
- 5 Have sex with your iPad thanks to the new sex toy no-one asked for
Tourist films plane's descent just metres above packed Caribbean beach
Bali nine: Welcome to 'Execution Island' – the Indonesian holiday resort where foreigners are sent to die
How Homer Simpson discovered the Higgs boson over a decade before scientists
The 'sex selfie stick' lets you FaceTime the inside of a vagina
Harrison Ford plane crash: Star Wars actor 'seriously injured' after light aircraft crash lands
Durham Free School: 'Creationism taught at' free school facing closure
Nearly 100,000 of Britain's poorest children go hungry after parents' benefits are cut
End of the licence fee: BBC to back radical overhaul of how it is funded
Ex-head of MI6: 'We shouldn't kid ourselves that Russia is on a path to democracy'
Most people think legal tax avoidance is just as wrong as illegal tax evasion, poll suggests
Nigel Farage promises Ukip will not 'stigmatise' would-be migrants – and says he wants 'everyone to speak the same language'
£37000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A position has become available...
£18000 - £20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company has a track record...
£40000 - £70000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an opportunity to join ...
£13000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity to join ...