So we know that industry funded trials are usually as good as or better than other research What does that mean for their results?
-
Show this thread
-
To put it another way, are industry funded trials more or less likely to find positive results for the funding body?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Well, we know that they're pretty good trials. If they were all fair comparisons, they should be the same or perhaps less likely
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
But instead, when we look at the evidence, we find... Exactly the opposite Industry funded trials mostly report positive results for the funding bodypic.twitter.com/nblpNjJ564
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
How can this be????
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
(I'll give you a hint - the industry is definitely not always right)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
A few people have answered, so let's put the cards on the table That's right, it's publication bias!
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
If we look at industry funded trials, they are almost never negative (i.e. no benefit for the funding body) It turns out that often, the negative trials just aren't published!
4 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Or they tend to study good bets in the first place, and or have higher subject numbers as they can fund multicentre trials
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
Oh yes, it's all about controlling the narrative, rather than individually bad trials, because bad trials don't convince governments or doctors (usually)
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.