40 percent of scientific papers published in the world’s top medical journals misrepresented the actual findings of the research

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found over 40 percent of the best designed, peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the world’s top medical journals misrepresented the actual findings of the research.The “spin doctors” writing the papers found a way to show treatments worked, when in fact, they didn’t.

In a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association French scientists reviewed over 600 studies published in the top medical journals during an entire year, and analyzed in detail 72 of those they considered to be of the highest quality. In their analysis they only included studies with the most respected and reliable design–the randomized controlled trial. The authors of this report did not just read the abstracts and conclusions of the studies they reviewed, but independently analyzed the raw data. Their findings call into question the reliability of the very scientific papers that doctors use to make decisions regarding treatment and that the press counts on to communicate the latest medical findings.

They found that 40 percent of the articles misrepresented the data in the abstract or in the main text of the study. Furthermore they uncovered that in cases where studies had negative outcomes–in other words, the treatment studied DID NOT work–the scientists authoring the studies created a “spin” on the data that showed the treatments DID work. Here is their conclusion:

“In this representative sample of RCT’s (randomized controlled trials) published in 2006 with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.

A new model of research may help us sort out this messy collusion between science, government and Big Pharma. Comparative effectiveness research takes existing treatments and compares them to determine which are the most effective. Unfortunately, fear mongering and lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry for “rationed care” convinced the Senate to leave a critical provision for funding comparative effectiveness research on the cutting room floor. Apparently, independent comparisons of medical therapies, including a comparison of new expensive drugs to older, proven, cheaper drugs, was considered bad for business. *

There has been a lot of research that asks the question “why are so many consumers going online for health information?”  I’ve found there are a lot of reasons but the fundamental reason still comes down to a matter of trust: trust that the medication they are prescribed works and trust that it won’t expose them to more serious conditions and side effects.

While a lot of the “issues” with the marketing of drugs is blamed on “marketing” people I would argue that the people who are making these bad decision came from the sales side of the business.  Today a lot of very good pharma marketers are being told they can’t advance in the company without spending time in the field as a salesperson.  Why ? Because pharma is a sales driven culture and sales people need tools to help them achieve numbers that come down from corporate on a spreadsheet.  When they have trouble they naturally turn to their friends in marketing for help.

The other story, of course, is the half full, half-empty scenario of statistical analysis.  There are some who believe pharma should report the worst case scenario when it comes to clinical trial data but too often there is no positive cause-effect between some “side effects”.

Some patients take medications for a long long time and they need to be informed about new clinical trials and side effects that are reported.  How does pharma reach them ? I believe that any medication that could be prescribed for more than 2-3 months of use needs to have a REMS so that patients can be updated on new information.  It’s the only way that pharma can take that first step to restore trust which it desperately need to do.