Approved anti-depressant deemed unsafe:
Studies suggest that patients, clinicians, and society often hold unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of tests and treatments. Two articles in this issue add to that literature. In New Zealand, Hudson et al3 surveyed 977 primary care patients and found that many overestimated the benefits of cancer screening and chemopreventive medications. The minimum benefit from screening that respondents deemed acceptable was less than their known benefit. The survey had a modest sample size and low response rate (36%), and its findings might not be fully applicable to other countries, but US studies have reported a similar problem. For example, a variety of studies document Americans' appetite for procedures of dubious effectiveness and their overestimation of benefits.4,5
Physicians are not immune to false beliefs about clinical efficacy or complication rates.8Correcting such misperceptions has always been part of the impetus for the evidence-based medicine movement and its promulgation of systematic evidence reviews, practice guidelines, and other tools that present the facts on benefits, safety, and scientific uncertainties. Even these tools, however, can reflect the misconceptions of those who produce them. The specialists who serve on expert panels derive much of their clinical case knowledge from the patients with advanced disease who fill their clinics. Having seen the worst of the worst, they are less sympathetic to expressions of concern about the potential harms of interventions or imperfections in efficacy studies.9Whereas epidemiologists consider the population denominator to put the numerator in perspective, the world of specialists is confined to the numerator, giving them a skewed basis for judging the population prevalence of diseases or benefit-risk ratios. Were this not enough, the preeminent scientists who often serve on guideline panels bring additional biases, such as being the authors of key studies under review or having financial ties to industry.10
http://www.annfammed.org/content/10/6/491.full
Baker IDI Melbourne fabricated research results
“Fabricated results” retract JAMA clinical trial, plus a sub-analysis of the data - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch: "“Fabricated results” retract JAMA clinical trial, plus a sub-analysis of the data
with 2 comments
A JAMA clinical trial that suggested a blood pressure drug could help patients increase their physical fitness, and a sub-analysis of those data, have been retracted after “an admission of fabricated results” by the first author on both papers.
The three-year clinical trial was published in JAMA in 2013. It was retracted this morning.
The trial found ramipril helped patients with artery disease walk longer and with less pain, according to the abstract:
Among patients with intermittent claudication, 24-week treatment with ramipril resulted in significant increases in pain-free and maximum treadmill walking times compared with placebo. This was associated with a significant increase in the physical functioning component of the SF-36 score.
The retraction note explains how the fabricated data came to light: "
'via Blog this'
with 2 comments
A JAMA clinical trial that suggested a blood pressure drug could help patients increase their physical fitness, and a sub-analysis of those data, have been retracted after “an admission of fabricated results” by the first author on both papers.
The three-year clinical trial was published in JAMA in 2013. It was retracted this morning.
The trial found ramipril helped patients with artery disease walk longer and with less pain, according to the abstract:
Among patients with intermittent claudication, 24-week treatment with ramipril resulted in significant increases in pain-free and maximum treadmill walking times compared with placebo. This was associated with a significant increase in the physical functioning component of the SF-36 score.
The retraction note explains how the fabricated data came to light: "
'via Blog this'
"for any inappropriate care to occur, complicit action on a large scale is required" - MJA
Med J Aust 2015;; 203 (4): 161-162.: "Instead of dismissing, we should consider that for any inappropriate care to occur, complicit action on a large scale is required. To deliver a do-not-do procedure a medical practitioner must first be credentialled, have a defined scope of practice and operate within their clinical team alongside support services and the governance structures of an organisation. Start counting how many people are involved. Therefore, the question we should be asking is: how is it possible for inappropriate care to occur? And what systems-level agreements perpetuate this situation?"https://www.mja.com.au/.../it-not-appropriate-dismiss...
and:
"Far too many patients in some Australian hospitals get a treatment they should not receive, against all evidence that the treatment is unnecessary or does not work.
This report identifies five treatments that should not be given to certain types of patients. Yet this happened to nearly 6000 people – or 16 people a day – in 2010-11." http://grattan.edu.au/.../questionable-care-avoiding.../
and:
"Far too many patients in some Australian hospitals get a treatment they should not receive, against all evidence that the treatment is unnecessary or does not work.
This report identifies five treatments that should not be given to certain types of patients. Yet this happened to nearly 6000 people – or 16 people a day – in 2010-11." http://grattan.edu.au/.../questionable-care-avoiding.../
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)