Saturday June 10, 2006
When I am finally assassinated by an axe-wielding electrosensitive homeopathic anti-vaccine campaigner – and that day surely cannot be far off now – I should like to be remembered, primarily, for my childishness and immaturity. Occasionally, however, I like to write about serious issues. And I don’t just mean the increase in mumps cases from 94 people in 1996 to 43,322 in 2005. No.
One thing we cover regularly in Bad Science is the way that only certain stories get media coverage. Scares about mercury fillings get double page spreads and Panorama documentaries; the follow-up research, suggesting they are safe, is ignored. Unpublished research on the dangers of MMR gets multiple headlines; published research suggesting it is safe somehow gets missed. This all seems quite normal to us now.
Strangely, the very same thing happens in the academic scientific literature, and you catch us right in the middle of doing almost nothing about it. Publication bias is the phenomenon where positive trials are more likely to get published than negative ones, and it can happen for a huge number of reasons, sinister and otherwise.
Major academic journals aren’t falling over themselves to publish studies about new drugs that don’t work. Likewise, researchers get round to writing up ground-breaking discoveries before diligently documenting the bland, negative findings, which sometimes sit forever in that third drawer down in the filing cabinet in the corridor that nobody uses any more. But it gets worse. If you do a trial for a drug company, they might – rarely – resort to the crude tactic of simply making you sit on negative results which they don’t like, and over the past few years there have been numerous systematic reviews showing that studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry are several times more likely to show favourable results than studies funded by independent sources. Most of this discrepancy will be down to cunning study design – asking the right questions for your drug – but some will be owing to Pinochet-style disappearings of unfavourable data.
And of course, just like in the mainstream media, profitable news can be puffed and inflated. Trials are often spread across many locations, so if the results are good, companies can publish different results, from different centres, at different times, in different journals. Suddenly there are lots of positive papers about their drug. Then, sometimes, results from different centres can be combined in different permutations, so the data from a single trial could get published in two different studies, twice over: more good news!
This kind of tomfoolery is hard to spot unless you are looking for it, and if you look hard you find more surprises. An elegant paper reviewing studies of the drug Ondansetron showed not just that patients were double and treble counted; more than that, when this double counting was removed from the data, the apparent efficacy of the drug went down. Apparently the patients who did better were more likely to be double counted. Interesting.
The first paper describing these shenanigans was in 1959. That’s 15 years before I was born. And there is a very simple and widely accepted solution: a compulsory international trials register. Give every trial a number, so that double counting is too embarrassingly obvious to bother with, so that trials can’t go missing in action, so that researchers can make sure they don’t needlessly duplicate, and much more. It’s not a wildly popular idea with drug companies.
Meanwhile the system is such a mess that almost nobody knows exactly what it is. The US has its own register, but only for US trials, and specifically not for clinical trials in the developing world (I leave you to imagine why companies might do their trials in Africa). The EU has a sort of register, but most people aren’t allowed to look at it, for some reason. The Medical Research Council has its own. Some companies have their own. Some research charities do too. The best register is probably Current Controlled Trials, and that’s a completely voluntary one set up by some academics a few years ago. I have a modest prize for the person with the longest list of different clinical trial registers.
And why is this news? Because people have been calling for a compulsory register for 20 years, and this month, after years of consulting, the World Health Organisation proudly announced a voluntary code, and a directory of other people’s directories of clinical trials. If it’s beyond the wit of humankind to make a compulsory register for all published trials, then we truly are lame.
Â· Please send your bad science to email@example.com
Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance â€” or vice versa. J Am Stat Assoc 1959;54:30-4
Tramer MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. BMJ 315: 635â€“640