August 26, 2003 – Hundreds of scientific studies presented at congresses and assemblies are then never published, which can have a marked impact on the treatment choices made by physicians.
An American doctor, Ian Tannock, determined that of the 510 studies presented over a 10-year period, 26% had still not been published five years later. Worse still, 19% of the studies that made discoveries deemed “important” had also not been published five years after the first announcement of their results.
The publication of the results of these studies in scientific journals is a long and complex process, which discourages several authors. However, this is the only way to allow the entire medical community, and not just those attending the congress during which they are unveiled, to see these results. Studies that are not published are forgotten because they are not listed by databases like PubMed1.
By publishing only a few studies – and what is more, by publishing primarily those whose results, positive or negative, stand out – scientific journals, says Dr. Tannock, can interfere with the treatment choices made by physicians. As the latter only have access to partial and unbalanced information, this could create the impression that a treatment is more or less effective than it is in reality.
He also sees it as a breach of the agreement reached with the participants in these studies. Despite the risks involved, subjects agree to participate in studies frequently with the intention of improving the lot of other patients, which they will never have the opportunity to do if the results of their study do not. are not published.
Dr Tannock suggests the creation of a gigantic database in which the results of all studies would be stored, regardless of whether they were published or not.
Similarly, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)2 recently made the controversial decision to release partial results of a study3 which was to last until 2002 but which was stopped in 2000. The study aimed to measure the effectiveness of an antihypertension drug manufactured by Pfizer, but the pharmaceutical giant ended it prematurely, citing “commercial reasons” .
JAMA released the partial results in protest against a move it says disrespects the estimated 17,000 patients who had been in the study for years.
Jean-Benoit Legault – PasseportSanté.net
From Associated Press and ACS News Today; April 23 and May 24, 2003.
1. www.pubmed.com
2.jama.ama-assn.org
3. Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, Grambsch P, Lucente T, White WB, Neaton JD, Grimm RH Jr, Hansson L, Lacourciere Y, Muller J, Sleight P, Weber MA, Williams G, Wittes J, Zanchetti A , Anders RJ; CONVINCE Research Group. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) trial.JAMA 2003 Apr 23-30; 289 (16): 2073-82.
