I often find discussion about industry funding in research very frustrating Industry funding doesn't necessarily mean a study is bad: a thread
-
-
BUT Here's where it gets tricky Numerous systematic reviews have also identified a key problem: industry-funded trials are just as good IF NOT BETTER than non-industry funded trialspic.twitter.com/dAENRM9xek
Show this thread -
This also makes sense: the industry has to use these studies to get drugs through regulatory authorities. Bad studies are less likely to lead to an approved drug!
Show this thread -
So what's happening here? The conclusion of the Cochrane review I pictured above gives you some idea... https://www.cochrane.org/MR000033/METHOD_industry-sponsorship-and-research-outcome …pic.twitter.com/NsVcfiv8JW
Show this thread -
The other systematic review I cited also paints a bit of a picturepic.twitter.com/Ee8ejUgQO8
Show this thread -
-
See, the thing is, if you look at each individual study under a microscope, it looks like the industry is doing everything right! Maybe some sneaky things here and there, but in general they do as well as or better than independent research
Show this thread -
The problem is largely meta-research issues like publication bias. This is why
@senseaboutsci is pushing for publication of ALL research findingsShow this thread -
If you can control which studies get published, and perhaps more importantly which studies get SEEN (big journals, media attention etc), then you can control the narrative about which drugs are best
Show this thread -
(Yes, the answer was 2: publication bias in the poll above)
Show this thread -
If someone says "but this study was funded by industry! That means it's bad!" you can cite the Cochrane or other reviews demonstrating why they are probably wrong
Show this thread -
But when you read about a medical intervention, it's always worth having a look at the non-industry funded studies show, because they are less likely to suffer from publication bias
Show this thread -
And importantly, THIS DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO DRUGS If you compare industry-funded studies of ketogenic diets vs independent research, you see a similar trend
Show this thread -
People who have a stake in the game are just less likely to publish research that might mean they will make less money. They also won't promote it, and may make it more difficult to access for everyone This is, in many ways, much worse than simply doing bad studies
Show this thread -
Bad studies are easy to find, easy to discard, easy to ignore. Most studies I've read on acupuncture, for example, are just awful Can't conclude anything from bad research!
Show this thread -
But by only publishing positive studies, and only promoting the very best ones, industries can manipulate the narrative by using basic statistical fact: Do enough studies and some of them will be VERY positive
Show this thread -
Some of them will be very negative too, but since you can control what gets published, people only see the good and never even hear about the bad
Show this thread -
All of this to say: the industry can produce hundreds of amazingly well-done studies and STILL do things in a dodgy way, which is why you should support
@senseaboutsci and pre-registration efforts everywhere!Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.