XML Feed for RxPG News   Add RxPG News Headlines to My Yahoo!   Javascript Syndication for RxPG News

Research Health World General
 
  Home
 
 Latest Research
 Cancer
 Psychiatry
 Genetics
 Surgery
 Aging
 Ophthalmology
 Gynaecology
 Neurosciences
 Pharmacology
 Cardiology
 Obstetrics
 Infectious Diseases
 Respiratory Medicine
 Pathology
 Endocrinology
 Immunology
 Nephrology
 Gastroenterology
 Biotechnology
 Radiology
 Dermatology
 Microbiology
 Haematology
 Dental
 ENT
 Environment
 Embryology
 Orthopedics
 Metabolism
 Anaethesia
 Paediatrics
 Public Health
 Urology
 Musculoskeletal
 Clinical Trials
 Physiology
 Biochemistry
 Cytology
 Traumatology
 Rheumatology
 
 Medical News
 Health
 Opinion
 Healthcare
 Professionals
 Launch
 Awards & Prizes
 
 Careers
 Medical
 Nursing
 Dental
 
 Special Topics
 Euthanasia
 Ethics
 Evolution
 Odd Medical News
 Feature
 
 World News
 Tsunami
 Epidemics
 Climate
 Business
Search

Last Updated: Oct 12th, 2006 - 13:22:47
Systematic Review

Special Topics Channel
subscribe to Special Topics newsletter

Special Topics

   DISCUSS   |   EMAIL   |   PRINT
Drug Company Research Reports Should Be Read With Caution
Oct 12, 2006, 13:19, Reviewed by: Dr. Venkat Yelamanchili

Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

 
A study published on bmj.com recently has found that reviews of drugs which are supported by the pharmaceutical industry are less transparent, and are more likely to reach favourable conclusion on drugs, than independent reviews.

According to the authors, bias in drug trials is common and often favours the trial-sponsor’s product. To balance this effect, independent reviews – which can have a more critical and systematic approach - are essential to ensure doctors and other health professionals have the information they need on drugs.

The authors, based in Denmark, compared the results of 24 pairs of reviews conducted by different people on the same drugs. Compared to reviews supported by the pharmaceutical industry, reviews undertaken by the Cochrane Collaboration – an independent body – were of a higher quality and were more likely to address the potential for bias in the review.

Of seven industry-supported reviews, all recommended the experimental drug without reservation, whilst none of the corresponding Cochrane reviews reached the same conclusion. Six of the eight Cochrane reviews analysed had reservations about the quality or relevance of the trials or their findings and two of them noted that the effect decreased with increasing number of patients in the trial. Seven mentioned higher cost of the experimental drug as a problem. In contrast, none of the industry-supported reviews mentioned higher cost as a problem, and two claimed that the experimental drug was cost-effective.

The researchers also found that the reviews with not-for-profit support or no support had similarly cautious conclusions as the Cochrane reviews.

The authors conclude that industry-supported reviews should be read with caution. They also want greater transparency, including the inclusion of more information on methodology and the estimated effects of the drugs, in order to allow readers to judge the reliability of drug reviews.
 

- British Medical Journal, 7 October 2006 (Vol 333, No 7571)
 

Read the full text original research article at BMJ website

 
Subscribe to Special Topics Newsletter
E-mail Address:

 



Related Special Topics News

New approach will pinpoint genes linked to evolution of human brain
Accelerating Loss of Ocean Species Threatens Human Well-being
New genetic analysis forces re-draw of insect family tree
Cell Phone Use Associated with Decline in Fertility
Marijuana-like Chemical Can Restore Sperm Function Lost to Tobacco Abuse
Reporters struggle to cover comas in newspaper articles
Drug Company Research Reports Should Be Read With Caution
Giant insects might reign if only there was more oxygen in the air
Infection Status Drives Interspecies Mating Choices in Fruit Fly Females
Waiting For Trial Results Sometimes Unethical


For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 

© Copyright 2004 onwards by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited
Contact Us