The results of major clinical trials may frequently be skewed to highlight positive results, says a new study from researchers in Toronto, Canada. For the study, lead researcher Ian Tannock of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre examined results reported on 146 large-scale phase III clinical trials.
Each of the trials reviewed by Tannock had a primary objective as well as secondary objectives. They found frequently that when these primary objectives failed, researchers were quick to underscore their successful secondary objectives. “A possible explanation for this could be that the investigators, sponsors or both, prefer to focus on the efficacy of the experimental treatment and downplay toxicity to make the results look more attractive,” he explained.
He added: “These reports were biased and used spin in attempts to conceal that bias. Better and more accurate reporting is urgently needed.”
Their report appeared in this month’s edition of Annals of Oncology.
by RTT Staff Writer
For comments and feedback: editorial@rttnews.comHealth News