Skip to main content

Bias and spin in reporting trials of new drugs for breast cancer

A paper published this week in the Annals of Oncology has demonstrated bias in the reporting of  outcome and toxicity of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RTCs) for breast cancer. These trials are the final stage of testing of the efficacy and toxicity of a new drug or treatment before approval by regulatory agencies.

Papers published in scientific and medical journals have an abstract, a summary of the findings, and it is in this that the results are often presented in a biased way. Of the reports of 164 trials they reviewed, 33% of them showed bias in the reporting of the primary end point (PE) and as many as 67% in reporting the toxicity. Bias in reporting of outcome is common for studies with negative PEs.  Reporting of toxicity is poor, especially for the studies with positive PEs. It isn't that the authors don't give the correct result in the body of the report. The problem is that they put a 'spin' on them.    It is shocking but perhaps the finding is not surprising.

It is often argued that science is 'ethically neutral'. I have never subscribed to such a view. There isn't an ideal position of neutrality;somewhere from which we can see things free from assumptions or even prejudice. There is always a view from somewhere; a perspective that influences the way in which we see or interpret apparently objective data. In short there isn't a view from nowhere.

Science tests ideas, usually by first framing them into clearly testable hypotheses. What this tells us is that science is a human activity, it isn't a body of knowledge existing in some rarefied library. As soon as we touch it we frame it. We bring it into our world view.  It is also the case that science rarely if ever produces definitive answers. For all studies there are caveats; it might be difficult to control or account for all possible variables. This always provides leeway in interpretation of results and it is here that bias and spin are often in play.

Emphasising the positive over the negative in results is a judgement. In the case of Phase 3 human trials such judgement can have significantly harmful consequences. Ethical science isn't simply a matter of 'getting the right result' or the 'result right'. Ethical science should always be alert to its vulnerabilities. It has motive, it involves perspective and decision. Where there are choices there must always be ethical consideration. Scientists should consider the consequences of any bias they may introduce into their reports.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As