Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract

Abstract

When patients seek medical care, they assume the treatment or advice they receive is based on a strong understanding of the human body and its processes. They also typically assume the care they receive is based on a strong understanding of the research literature pertaining to their well-being and any ailments for which they might seek care. However, publication bias and inadequate research transparency greatly threaten medical providers' ability to practice evidence-based medicine in its truest form, and this in turn puts patients at unnecessary risk. The evidence of these issues existing is unequivocal. However, systematic reviews and other studies that present overviews of these issues -although certainly incredibly important in establishing the undeniable presence and pervasiveness of these issues -may inadvertently obfuscate the concreteness of these closely-related processes in action. Therefore, this article presents a "case series" of these detrimental issues in action in an effort to emphasize the tangibility of these issues and thereby help make their importance unmistakably clear.

How publication bias and inadequate research transparency endanger medicine

“…This might have been at least partially avoidable if existing data had been published and disseminated to prescribers. 1 • Remarkable discrepancies exist between the trial data available in the peer-reviewed literature and the trial data available at the FDA for various antidepressants. 1 • Internal company memos show candid discussions of how to handle research evidence on gabapentin to maximize its off-label appeal regardless of what the data actually showed.…”

“…1 • Remarkable discrepancies exist between the trial data available in the peer-reviewed literature and the trial data available at the FDA for various antidepressants. 1 • Internal company memos show candid discussions of how to handle research evidence on gabapentin to maximize its off-label appeal regardless of what the data actually showed. 1 These examples add poignant tangibility to the effect of these issues, and to make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest the examples provided are extraordinary.…”

“…1 • Internal company memos show candid discussions of how to handle research evidence on gabapentin to maximize its off-label appeal regardless of what the data actually showed. 1 These examples add poignant tangibility to the effect of these issues, and to make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest the examples provided are extraordinary. Indeed, evidence of the pervasive existence of these issues is incontrovertible: The two most recent systematic reviews (from 2013 and 2010) examining publication bias (the How publication bias and inadequate research transparency endanger medicine Martin G. Mayer, MS, PA-C nocent phenomenon whereby studies are not properly published, often with an apparent predilection for "positive" studies to get published while "negative" studies go missing in action) found that about 50% of studies go unpublished, and issues with inadequate transparency also loom large.…”

“…Indeed, evidence of the pervasive existence of these issues is incontrovertible: The two most recent systematic reviews (from 2013 and 2010) examining publication bias (the How publication bias and inadequate research transparency endanger medicine Martin G. Mayer, MS, PA-C nocent phenomenon whereby studies are not properly published, often with an apparent predilection for "positive" studies to get published while "negative" studies go missing in action) found that about 50% of studies go unpublished, and issues with inadequate transparency also loom large. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Yet, in spite of these issues being well-documented, undeniably pervasive, and patently deleterious, previous remedial efforts (namely, those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the US government) have unequivocally failed to rectify these issues. 1,2 Fortunately, despite previous efforts being demonstrable failures (at least in their current state and execution), recent developments have gained momentum.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Yet, in spite of these issues being well-documented, undeniably pervasive, and patently deleterious, previous remedial efforts (namely, those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the US government) have unequivocally failed to rectify these issues. 1,2 Fortunately, despite previous efforts being demonstrable failures (at least in their current state and execution), recent developments have gained momentum. For instance, the BMJ launched its Open Data campaign (www.bmj.com/ open-data) and the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative.…”