So back to the original question Compared to non-industry trials, are industry trials (in terms of risk of bias)
-
-
So individual trials can be very good - meaning that industry funding isn't necessarily an issue for individual trials - but they still make a misleading picture overall
Show this thread -
If you're interested in this issue, you should follow
@senseaboutsci who are doing great work getting studies registered and publishedShow this thread -
So ultimately, saying "the industry funded this trial" doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of its quality What it does say is that you should be looking for more research overall because there may be unpublished work contradicting the findings
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Unless they are Alzheimer's drugs or PPAR Inhibitors or CB2 agonists, which are relentlessly negative
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ah, this bit I knew because of
@bengoldacre -
Really put some of my experiences with doctors and medication into perspective.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sources? It's a claim I've seen now and then, but I know I've seen criticism. Sounds uncharacteristically unprofessional... Isn't a main reason for reviews finding more null results in academic trials just a higher freq of more experimental interventions?
@statsguyuk ? -
I don't believe there are any good sources for that claim. It's true that in the past, negative trials were less likely to be published than positive ones, but that cuts across all sectors. Applied to industry and academia alike.
- Show replies
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.