31. This was first pointed out to me by Jamie Heywood from PatientsLikeMe, who spent huge resources trying and failing to replicate research findings in another area of medicine. The last time I saw him we talked about writing up his idea that the likelihood of a claim being true is proportional to the cost of making it, and inversely proportional to the cost of refuting it. We’ve not done so, and until then, a description of our conversation is the only reference for this neat idea.
32. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012 Mar 28;483(7391): 531-3.
33. Harrabin R et al (2003). Health In The News, The King’s Fund, London, UK.
34. Forsyth, Alasdair J. M. 2001. Distorted? a quantitative exploration of drug fatality reports in the popular press. International Journal of Drug Policy 12, no. 5–6 (November 1): 435–453.
35. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL: Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992, 267:374–378.
36. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, Zhu Q, Reiling J, Pace B: Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002, 287:2825–2828.
37. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 2006;184:621-6. Lynch JR, Cunningham MRA, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS. Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1010-8. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M. Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:595–601.
38. Epstein WM. Confirmation response bias among social work journals. Sci Techol Hum Values 1990;15:9-38.
39. Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Ther Res 1977;1:161-75.
40. Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias a blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med 1994;124:178-82.
41. Abbot NE, Ernst E. Publication bias: direction of outcome less important than scientific quality. Perfusion 1998;11:182-4.
42. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 22;170(21):1934-9.
43. Smith R. The Trouble With Medical Journals. RSM Books, UK; 2006.
44. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998;280:257-9.
45. Kupfersmid J, Fiala M. A survey of attitudes and behaviors of authors who publish in psychology and education journals. Am Psychol 1991;46:249-50.
46. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193.
47. Gotzsche PC, Hrobjartsson a, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altmar DG, Chan A-W: Constraints on publication rights in industryinitiated clinical trials. JAMA 2006, 295:1645–1646.
48. Gornall, J. ‘Industry attack on academics.’ BMJ 338, no. mar09 1 (March 9, 2009): b736-b736.
49. Ibid.
50. Steinbrook R. Gag clauses in clinical-trial agreements. N. Engl. IJ. Med. 2005 May 26;352(21):2160-2.
51. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers’ standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;352(21):2202.
52. This is one of many stories for which I recommend delving into the horrible details, if you’re interested. A good place to start here is Prof David Colquhoun’s blog on the topic, with many links http://www.dcscience.net/?p=193 and this BMJ piece written by a lawyer, to keep the lawyers reading this book happy: Dyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: Academic who took on industry. BMJ. 2009 Dec 15;339(dec15 1):b5293-b5293.
53. Wendler D, Krohmal B, Emanuel EJ, Grady C, for the ESPRIT Group. Why Patients Continue to Participate in Clinical Research. Arch Intern Med. 2008 Jun 23;168(12):1294-9.
54. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.
55. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1986 Oct 1;4(10):1529–1541.
56. Clarke M, Clarke L, Clarke T. Yes Sir, no Sir, not much difference Sir. JRSM. 2007 Dec 1;100(12):571–572.
57. Chalmers Iain. Underreporting Research Is Scientific Misconduct. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1405–1408.
58. Chalmers I. From optimism to disillusion about commitment to transparency in the medico-industrial complex. JRSM. 2006 Jul 1;99(7):337–341.
59. Their delegation was led by Frank Wells: his textbook on fraud is fantastic. I tell you this because you should understand that these are not all bad people with inherently secretive natures.
60. Sykes R. Being a modern pharmaceutical company. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1172-80.
61. http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4330.
62. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Lancet. 2004 Sep 11;364(9438):911-2.
63. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA. 2009 Sep 2;302(9):977-84.
64. Wieseler B, McGauran N, Kaiser T. Still waiting for functional EU Clinical Trials Register. BMJ. 2011 Jun 20;342(jun202):d3834d3834.
65. Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7373.
66. A good (but brief) overview of how to try and get info from nonacademic sources is here: Chan A-W. Out of sight but not out of mind: how to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence. BMJ. 2012 Jan 3;344(jan03 2):d8013-d8013.
67. You can read the letters and the report online. It’s a gripping read, with many interesting and nefarious details, so I highly recommend doing so: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) www. mhra. gov. u. GSK investigation concludes [Internet]. [cited 2012 Apr 29]. Available from: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/ Medicines/Medicinesregulatorynews/CON014153
68. This was SmithKline Beecham, before they merged with GlaxoWellcome and became GSK.
69. Strech D, Littmann J. Lack of proportionality. Seven specifications of public interest that override post-approval commercial interests on limited access to clinical data. Trials. 2012 Jul 2;13(1):100.
70. Lenzer J, Brownlee S. Antidepressants: an untold story? BMJ 2008;336:532-4.
71. Wood AJ. Progress and deficiencies in the registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):824-830
72. O’Connor AB. The need for improved access to FDA reviews. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2009;302(2):191.
73. http://www.prescrire.org/editoriaux/EDI33693.pdf
74. Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 2560/2007/BEH against the European Medicines Agency. November 2010. http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/ cases/decision.faces/en/5459/html.bookmark.
75. UK drug regulator destroys all the evidence after 15 years/ BMI[Internet]. Available from http://www.bmj.com/ rapid-response/2011/11/03/uk-drug-regulator-destroys-allevidence-after-15-years.
76. You might be unsurprised to hear that no large drug company has ever been prosecuted under the safety monitoring regulations in the UK.
77. This story is spread over various publications by the Cochrane team, and the account here is taken from their work, published responses from Roche, and discussions with the Cochrane team. The best place to get the early half of this story is this paper: Doshi P. Neuraminidase inhibitors the story behind the Cochrane review. BMJ. 2009;339. And for the second half, I recommend this open-access paper: Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience. PLoS Med 9(4): e1001201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001201 http://bit.ly/HIbwqO
78. This is a fascinating and messy new area. The paper below gives a good summary of the importance of analysing full trial programmes, and the discrepancies found on Tamiflu between papers and Clinical Study Reports: Jefferson T, Doshi P, Thompson M, Heneghan C, Group CARI. Ensuring safe and effective drugs: who can do what it takes? BMJ. 2011 Jan 11;342(jan11 1):c7258-c7258.
79. This is all from: Jefferson T, Doshi P, Thompson M, Heneghan C, Group CARI. Ensuring safe and effective drugs: who can do what it takes? BMJ. 2011 Jan 11;342(jan11 1):c7258-c7258.
80. Tom Jefferson, Lecture on Tamiflu, BMJ Evidence 2011, London.
81. Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):635-40.
82. Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience. PLoS Med 9(4): e1001201. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001201 http://bit.ly/HIbwqO
83. Cohen D (2009) Complications: tracking down the data on oseltamivir. BMJ 339: b5387.