Olha ai, de novo, as agruras da vida do estatistico que noa lida com
experimentos.
Eu imagino que os ensaios clinicos da industria sao muito bem escolhidos entre os
mais promissores. Ja os outros (non-profit) sao de risco mais elevado e por isto
mesmo deixados de lado pelka industria. Qual a surpresa sobre as taxas de sucesso
academico posteriores?
OK, maquinacoes da insustria farmaceutica e a hipotese do sistema malevolo
comandoadno nossas vidas sao tambem hipoteses explicativas. Mas eu so compraria
esta se pudessemos fazer um experiemnto:
- selecione um grupo de ensaios clinicos a serem realizados.
- com uma moeda decida quem recebe financiamento for profit e non-profit
- compare depois.
Da forma como sao feitos os estudos atualmente, os dois grupos nao sao
comparaveis desde o instante zero.
Renato Assunção
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Instituto de Ciencias Exatas
Departamento de Estatistica
Campus Pampulha
Belo Horizonte MG 31270-901 - Brasil
assuncao@est.ufmg.br FAX: 55-31-3409-5924 PHONE: 55-31-3409-5940
http://www.est.ufmg.br/~assuncao
-----"Luis Paulo Vieira Braga" <lpbraga@im.ufrj.br> escreveu: -----
Para: abe-l@ime.usp.br
De: "Luis Paulo Vieira Braga" <lpbraga@im.ufrj.br>
Data: 18/09/2008 9.25
Assunto: [ABE-L]: citações versus financiamento
Industry-Sponsored Trials More Widely Cited Than Not-for-Profit Studies
(from Heart wire a professional news service of WebMD)
http://www.theheart.org/index.do
Michael O'Riordan
September 10, 2008 (Boston, MA) Cardiovascular clinical trials sponsored by
industry are more likely to be cited in future medical publications than
studies performed by not-for-profit organizations, a new study has shown.
Efforts should be made to ensure that important trials conducted by
government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are
more widely disseminated to the cardiovascular community, say investigators.
"As a researcher, my core belief is that high-quality research gets done by
the NIH and by industry, and the quality of our patients' lives will improve
if this information is transmitted to the medical community," senior
investigator Dr Paul Ridker (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) told
heartwire. "What we observed is that the translation to practice is more
rapid and thorough for industry-funded studies. We hope there can be a
mechanism to do a better job promoting the findings of federally funded
studies as well."
The results of the study, with first author Dr David Conen (Brigham and
Women's Hospital), are published online September 8, 2008 in Circulation.
In 2006, Ridker and colleagues published a study showing that cardiovascular
clinical trials funded by for-profit sponsors were significantly more likely
to have positive results than trials reported by not-for-profit funding
sources. He told heartwire that while the initial publication has an impact
on clinical practice, how often the paper is cited in subsequent medical
publications also has an effect on physician behavior.
The purpose of this study, explained Ridker, was to examine how the
cardiovascular community responded to high-quality research funded by
different sources. To do so, the Harvard researchers analyzed 303 consecutive
superiority trials of cardiovascular medicine published between January 1,
2000 and July 30, 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. They then determined the
number of citations per publication per year, a metric used to ascertain how
the medical community was responding to the findings.
Investigators observed that industry-funded studies had more citations per
publication per year than NIH- or other federally funded studies. This was
true in all settings except for one: industry-funded studies were not cited
as frequently when the studies failed to show a benefit.