General: studies, including Phase III trials, with a negative or no results are rarely published. Article updated April 11, 2011
April 11, 2011: I am cancer-current revision to the article below and let it stand as it is still relevant information.
December 5, 2006: Source: Wall Street Journal thanks to Frank
Scientists publish, whether or not under pressure from the producers and clients, rarely to study effects of drugs with a negative or no good result. This reports the Wall Street Journal in a short article. It is notable that in 1999 there was an investigation and study of all published results were 90% positive. This is in the eyes of independent scientists absolutely impossible result. The course reflects the interests involved in whether or not to publish good and less good results. Thus, this week announced that a randomized phase III study of a new drug to Pfizer (torcetrapib name) for heart problems (cholesterol) to replace a drug (Lipotor), whose patent expires in 2007 up to approximately 40% (82 compared with 51 ) yielded more deaths than the old medicine. And that in a phase III study which is normally a whole slew of phase I and II trials were preceded by at least according to the manufacturer but these results have never shown. Scientists now claim the Wall Street Journal that negative results are deliberately concealed and only in the interest of commerce to some studies ever be repeated or put in the hope that one day a study will show something positive. But frankly, we do not need scientists to come to that conclusion too. Unfortunately.
Originally published December January 2006 Negative results of drug trials routinely Suppressed by Jessica Fraser (News Target) Researchers Rarely publish negative research results in mainstream medical journals, and even purposely suppress results That Fail to Prove Links Between diseases and drugs or genes, According To The Wall Street Journal's Sharon Begley. To combat scientists' reluctance to publish negative results, That new medical journals are dedicated solely to the publication of negative study results are gaining popularity, with more like-minded journals Constantly joining the ranks. A 1999 analysis of the success of scientific studies found That Certain fields or research areas regularly enjoy some success more Than 90 percent of the time, Which is improbable, According To Lee Sigelman of George Washington University.
"Publication bias" has led to inaccurate public perception of Certain health issues. For example, suppression of negative study results in the 1990s led the public to believe That oral contraceptives are linked to an Increase in risk of cervical cancer, but a 2000 analysis of the data found That studies finding no link Between the drugs and the disease Were Rarely published, Suggesting a Possible bogus connection. "You hear stories about negative studies getting stuck in a file drawer, but Rigorous analysis Suspicion That Also Support the journals are biased in favor of positive studies," said David Lehrer of the University of Helsinki, who started Recently the new Journal of Spurious Correlations . Accor ding to Bjorn Olsen of Harvard Medical School, who Helped found the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, suppressing negative trial results Wastes time and money for others researchers. Likely some scientists decline to publish negative results in order to keep competing scientists working on similar theories incorrectly, wasting money and time. Olsen's journal is dedicated to publishing studies Strictly That Dispute Between Reported links genetics and disease.
The publication HAS Recently featured studies Questioning the Link Between the SOD1 gene and Lou Gehrig's disease, the MTHFR gene and Huntington's disease and the PINK-1 gene and late-onset Parkinson's disease. Hopefully, Olsen said, making Such information available to help researchers better focus Their effort, as well as aid the public in Deciphering what to believe from medical studies, and what to question.
