March 22nd, 2016

Доказательная медицина, as it is.

"I mentioned that I had received that kind invitation and wanted to find out how I could join the research. The person at the other end of the phone line promised me authorship in the randomized trial; the more patients I could recruit, the better my authorship position. I asked to see the protocol and comment on it. The answer was clear and immediate ‘‘Oh, the protocol, why should you worry about the protocol? The sponsoring company has taken care of the protocol already and will also take care of writing the paper. You don’t need to worry about that minor stuff. You shouldn’t waste time with the protocol or editing drafts. We will put your name as an author on the papers, no worries. This is what all prestigious clinical researchers do.’’" (c)
http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00147-5/pdf

А потом, некоторые граждане начинают молится на эти публикации. А также:

"In 1999 at the closing session of the Cochrane Colloquium in Rome, among the prevailing enthusiasm of this benevolent community, I spoiled the mirth with my skepticism. I worried that the Cochrane Collaboration may cause harm by giving credibility to biased studies of vested interests through otherwise respected systematic reviews. My good friend, Iain Chalmers, countered that we should not worrydplus there were many topics where the industry had not been involved. He mentioned steroids as one example. It was not very reassuring. Now even the logo of the Collaboration, the forest plot for prenatal steroids, has been shown to be partially wrong due to partial reporting dlet alone reviews of trials done with vested interests from their very conception." (Ibid.)

Кохрейн-шмахрейн.

(via dok_zlo)