So we know that industry funded trials are usually as good as or better than other research What does that mean for their results?
-
-
Please unroll
@ThreadReaderApp -
Hallo the unroll you asked for: Thread by
@GidMK: "This is a common misconception that springs up all the time, so let's talk industry bias in scientific research Does ind […]" https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1103539010025119744.html … Have a good day.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/ Thanks. Excellent. I seem to recall a few comparisons in which the same drug is studied with different funding sources, results suggestive of bias. Plus as I understand it, they don’t share data. Lastly, p-hacking was only identified in 2011 and pre-trial registration
-
2/ is a recent (and often unenforced) innovation. Have these improved industry reports?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yup. “The study was industry funded” is the laziest of trial critique. Explain why the study was poor (maybe it was! That happens) but just saying that it was industry funded isn’t a real criticism or explanation of anything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Apart from publication bias, funding sets the agenda. Whether or not funders—private or public, commercial or nonprofit—bring an agenda to the table, they determine the questions that get asked (specifically, which questions will be afforded the expense of large-scale RCTs).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What is your take on Marcia Angelo’s vocal and ongoing criticism of research bias? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opinion/jose-baselga-research-disclosure-bias.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share …
-
*Angell. Stupid autocorrect
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.