This concept led me to ponder the question of bias in medicine from a broader perspective and how biased trials may inform the way in which we practice medicine. Every-Palmer and Howick (2014) discussed this very phenomenon and the problematic ways in which many intervention studies are industry funded. The authors concluded by stating that many trials with “unfavourable” outcomes are often not published. Thus, the articles that DO get published are essentially, selectively chosen because they portray the “product” in a marketable and “favourable” light— which brings up questionable ethical practices. Unfavorable outcomes are just as important as favorable outcomes and consumers deserve to know what works AND what doesn’t work — and why. However, what investors will allow for unfavorable outcomes to be published about a product they are trying to sell? It’s not what realistically happens in this capitalist-driven system. What we need are more non-industry driven articles to eliminate bias-- however-- this requires funding that is already limited due to limitations in government resources. A shift towards socialized medicine is key -- and as a society, it is important to think about how we can move in that direction.
Additionally, while these authors are New Zealand based, this leads me to ponder the number of industry-funded versus non-industry-funded studies that exist in the United States (or other parts of the world). This class has helped me reinforce the importance of looking at the fine print at the end of the article and seeing which parties are involved with publication of the article and interpreting results with a “grain of salt,” if you will.
References
Every‐Palmer, S., & Howick, J. (2014). How evidence‐based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 20(6), 908-914.