AR-News: Oxford University/Vivisection

[Michelle Sass]

Scientists twisting medical study results
By Robert Matthews
Oxford
June 1, 2004

Scientists are routinely cherry-picking and, in some cases, altering the 
results of clinical studies to present the findings they want, a study 
by academics at Oxford University shows.

The research, which assessed the published results of more than 100 
scientific trials, also found that inconvenient findings were often not 
disclosed to the public. In several cases, the stated purpose of the 
trial was altered as it progressed so that acceptable findings, rather 
than inconvenient results, could be published.

The manipulation, which contravenes official guidelines on reporting 
medical research, was uncovered by a team led by An-Wen Chan, a 
researcher on clinical medicine. Dr Chan warned that the findings called 
into question the evidence-based approach to developing medicine, in 
which clinical trials are used to determine whether to introduce new 
treatments.

"The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but 
biased and inconsistent with protocols," the team said. "Published 
articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be 
unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention."

Suspicion about the reliability of published medical research, which has 
been increasing for some time, has been prompted by concern over the 
influence of drug company funding.

A recent study at the Yale School of Medicine showed that 80 per cent of 
clinical trials backed by drug manufacturers reported positive findings 
- compared with 50 per cent of those carried out by independent 
academics. Other studies have shown evidence of a bias against unclear 
trial results being published in academic journals, and of positive 
results being repeatedly published - giving the impression that a drug 
is far more effective than it really is.

The Oxford team's findings, published in the latest edition of The 
Journal of the American Medical Association, are based on an assessment 
of the original paperwork from more than 100 trials of medical 
techniques ranging from drugs to surgery.

It compared the supposed aims of the trials with what was finally 
published and found that in half of the studies, results that would have 
given a more accurate picture of the effectiveness of the treatment 
being studied were not fully reported.

In almost two-thirds of these cases, the results omitted concerns over 
potential harmful effects. Independent researchers were just as prone to 
bias as those who were funded by industry. Crucial information, from the 
intensity of pain to survival rates, was either downgraded or omitted 
from the published report.

In more than half of the trials examined, discrepancies were found 
between the original aims of the study and those finally reported.

Such changes contravene official guidelines on trials. Despite this, not 
one trial report made clear that the original aims had been altered.

When contacted by the Oxford team, almost 90 per cent of research teams 
denied they had failed to report everything.

Doug Altman, professor of statistics in medicine at the Institute of 
Health Sciences, Oxford, and part of the research team, said: "All 
trials should be published honestly and transparently, and this study 
shows neither is happening."

- Telegraph