Posted by SLS on January 19, 2008, at 5:29:27
In reply to Re: Bias in publishing of antidepressant trials? » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on January 18, 2008, at 22:06:51
Thanks for the clarification, Larry.
I don't wish to insult you, but we are in agreement. I don't know how that might portend to your future reputation.
:-)
- Scott
> > > Unless they determine whether these negative trials were submitted for publication, then this study is itself biased.
> >
> > I think I understand what you are saying. I guess articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals are subject to the reviewers' determining the effectiveness of the trial reported. A failed study would be judged to be ineffective, and therefore has no reason to be published.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> I probably could have said it better.
>
> In the late 80's and through the 90's, medical journals competed to be the first to publish the latest breakthrough. Submissions often numbered ten or more times what could ever be put into print. Before peer-review, even, editors tossed most of what they were offered. A study with a failed hypothesis doesn't stand much chance of seeing print.
>
> What I'm getting at is that it's not appropriate to blame the pharmaceutical companies for an effect that was subject to a number of independent decisions made by third parties with their own motives.
poster:SLS
thread:807465
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080114/msgs/807565.html