The money blind: how to stop industry bias in biomedical science, without violating the First Amendment.

The pharmaceutical and medical device industries use billions of dollars to support the biomedical science that physicians, regulators, and patients use to make healthcare decisions--the decisions that drive an increasingly large portion of the American economy. Compelling evidence suggests that this industry money buys favorable results, biasing the outcomes of scientific research. Current efforts to manage the problem, including disclosure mandates and peer reviews, are ineffective. A blinding mechanism, operating through an intermediary such as the National Institutes of Health, could instead be developed to allow industry support of science without allowing undue influence. If the editors of biomedical journals fail to mandate that industry funders utilize such a solution, the federal government has several regulatory levers available, including conditioning federal funding and direct regulation, both of which could be done without violating the First Amendment.

[Clinical trials registers. Introduction to the topic and backgrounds]. / Register für klinische Studien. Einführung in das Thema und Hintergründe.

It is a moral responsibility of those performing clinical studies towards patients, funding organizations, the scientific community and towards the general public to publish the results of clinical trials. Under-reporting of clinical trials with null or even negative results as well as over-reporting of trials with positive results can lead to a biased assessment of (new) treatments, which leads to overestimation of potential benefits and underestimation of potential risks. Comprehensive, publicly accessible clinical trial registries are now widely accepted as an essential tool to fill the information gap. Here, the background for implementing a clinical trials register in Germany is described, whereby publication bias, in particular, is addressed.

The federal government and academic texts as barriers to informed consent.

Informed patient consent for medical treatment is required by both law and medical ethics. Yet, both federal agencies and academicians are participating in the suppression of information about the heightened risk of breast cancer posed by oral contraceptives and induced abortion. There is historical precedent in the long-delayed acknowledgement of the smoking/lung cancer link. By law, a patient has the right to be fully informed of the nature of her medical condition and any proposed course of therapy. It is assumed that a patient will be given the complete and true scientific basis of her diagnosis and treatment, to ensure that her well-being and her autonomy in decision-making are protected. Informed consent is the process by which a patient can participate in choices about medical treatment. It originates from the legal and ethical right of the patient to direct what is done to her body, and from the ethical duty of the physician to involve the patient in her medical care. Our federal government has become a barrier to informed consent concerning oral contraceptive drugs and induced abortion.

Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE). RESULTS: We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE). CONCLUSION: The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.