Negative research often spun to look good: study

Related Topics

NEW YORK | Tue May 25, 2010 5:20pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Scientists are no strangers to spinning their research, a new study -- presumably not spun -- shows.

More than half of 72 reports examined by French and British researchers had dressed up their conclusions to make it seem as if new treatments were beneficial, even though they weren't according to the statistics in the report.

For instance, one study concluded a cancer detection system worked, but couldn't back it up with actual results, Dr. Isabelle Boutron, who worked on the study, told Reuters Health.

"Some of it was quite shocking," said Boutron, of the Universite Paris Descartes in France, adding that not all the examples were as glaring.

Earlier research has shown that findings are often spun when money is involved -- for instance when a drug maker funds a study of its own product. In such cases, favorable conclusions may directly contradict the actual results.

But the spin is often subtle and may even slip by experts reviewing the scientific article. This was true for Vioxx, a pain drug launched and later recalled by Merck, Boutron and her colleagues note.

When a clinical study was published in 2000 comparing Vioxx with an older drug, the authors downplayed the risk of heart attack: Instead of reporting the five-fold increase in risk, they chose to frame it as a protective effect of the older drug.

Although she didn't examine the motives behind the spin, Boutron found several dubious strategies to misrepresent data. Researchers would try to focus on only positive parts of their analysis, or compare patients before and after they received a treatment, without noting how patients responded to placebo. Because the placebo response can be quite powerful, particularly in psychiatry, this can easily distort research findings.

"I'm sure most of the authors weren't cheating, they were just very enthusiastic about their results," Boutron said. But she added that she has become more suspicious when she reads academic articles, and that journals should pay more attention to research spin.

"I supposed it will change the way I review papers," she said.

SOURCE: here

JAMA/Journal of the American Medical Association, May 26, 2010.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
austingjohns wrote:
Duh…

May 25, 2010 7:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oldtechie wrote:
The drug companies are not the only ones guilty of this. How about the current updates on the effectiveness of all these cancer tests? Dr. Richard Ablin of the University of Arizona, developer of the PSA test called the prostate test a ‘public health disaster’ and a news report of a new ovarian cancer test showed 64% false positives. New studies show even breast cancer screening does not save lives. Does anybody care that the fact that these tests are wrong most of the time cause massive personal suffering for the profit of the medical business?

May 26, 2010 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.