L'Etat calamiteux de l'éthique des publications dans la ligue mondiale de médecine.

Calendrier de l'Avent médical 2019 : Jour 12

Les revues prédatrices dans Nature : LA.

Predatory journals: no definition, no defence

Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship. It took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach.

Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval.

Elsevier, l'éditeur qui corrompt l'Open Science en Europe : ICI.

Un bel article dans The Guardian. Rappelons que l'Open Science a pour objectif d'ouvrir l'accès aux informations scientifiques en 2020. Un beau projet européen mis en place sous l'égide de la Commission Européenne. Le hic vient de ce que l'on a confié le projet à Elsevier... Lire la suite.

Elsevier are corrupting open science in Europe

La pratique frauduleuse de ne publier ni les protocoles ni les données bases des études quand elles sont négatives ou autres : ICI.

The idea of RIAT (Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials) was born in a specific time period: the early part of this decade. This was when we started realising that clinical trials published in traditional biomedical journals were in the best case scenario extreme summaries of clinical study reports and other documents which contained extensive descriptions of the design, conduct and results. The underlying richness of detail and data, which was astonishing for those who had been used to journal articles, allowed two important aspects of scrutiny. First, we could do many more analyses and look at traditionally neglected aspects, such as harms reporting. This was not possible with journal articles. Second, we and other groups started noticing what we called discrepancies between the content of clinical study reports and their published counterparts. The discrepancies were misreporting in most cases.

Comment les AMM sont obtenues en oncologie : facilement : LA.

Cet article, qui vient à la suite d'autres que j'avais déjà cités, est fondamental car il montre combien ni les industriels, ni les agences gouvernementales (ici l'agence européenne, EMA), ni les revues ne font attention aux "détails" que sont les biais, la conduite des essais, l'analyse et la notification des effets indésirables.

Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Les études alakhon : LA. La Chapelle des facteurs confondants.

BREAST CANCER LINKED TO PERMANENT HAIR DYE AND CHEMICAL HAIR STRAIGHTENERS IN STUDY OF ALMOST 50,000 WOMEN

La part de l'industrie dans les essais ou comment l'EBM est flouée : ICI.

For example, the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — published 73 studies of new drugs. Of those studies, a pharmaceutical company funded 60, 50 had drug-company employees among the authors and 37 lead researchers had accepted money from a drug company, according to a review conducted by the Washington Post.

For instance, a report from John Hopkins University showed that the number of clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry has increased each year since 2006, while those funded by the NIH decreased. In 2014, Big Pharma paid for 6,550 trials, while NIH funded 1,048, according to a study by Stephan Ehrhardt and colleagues published in JAMA.

On s'arrête là ?