Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Curbing bias in medical research

Robert Pearl, MD
Physician
August 3, 2014
329 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share

To improve patient care, doctors rely on research and published information.

According to an American Medical News report, professional journals are still the most popular source of up-to-date medical information among doctors.

These medical publications inform physicians on new drugs and treatments, and they contain peer-reviewed studies that both physicians and patients assume are scientifically accurate.

But all too often, research findings aren’t as scientific as they should be. And some are flat-out biased.

Research studies confirm bias in research

In 2012, the report “Industry sponsorship and research outcome” concluded that studies sponsored by a drug or device company lead to “more favorable results and conclusions” about the products studied than independently sponsored ones.

And a recent study from the Harvard Medical School on plastic surgery outcomes concluded, “Studies authored by groups with conflicts of interest are significantly associated with reporting lower surgical complications and therefore describing positive research findings.”

This was especially true when manufacturer-marketed products were used in the study, according to the study’s abstract.

Perhaps the most damning study comes by way of the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

In it, the authors identified 24 peer-reviewed studies published in highly respected medical journals. Each study compared two different types of suction devices that help wounds heal faster.

One device uses a sponge-type material while the other relies on a gauze-wound interface.

The researchers asked five independent surgeons to read all 24 papers and determine which product was judged as better in each study.

The conclusion: Seven papers seemed to favor the first treatment, 15 favored the second and 2 didn’t reach a definitive judgment.

Now, here’s the kicker

Of the 24 studies, 19 were funded by a manufacturer of one of the two devices. Lo and behold, based on determinations made by the independent surgeons, 18 of those 19 papers recommended the product made by the manufacturer who funded the research. Just one manufacturer-funded study was deemed to have a neutral conclusion.

From a statistical perspective, this is nearly an impossible outcome.

Flip a coin 19 times and there’s a 1 in 524,288 chance it comes up heads each time.

We might expect that if the two alternative products were relatively equivalent and the research truly unbiased, the product sold by the non-funding company should come out on top about half the time. To have no study go against the funding company yields nearly impossible odds.

And if they are not equivalent, the better product should be identified in nearly all studies, regardless of the source of the researcher’s funding.

There is no way to interpret these results, except to assume the researchers themselves were biased based on who paid for their work.

Biased outcomes like these would raise red flags in any other context. They would have signaled some sort of inappropriate influence. The scientific results would have been rejected by medical journals.

But not under these circumstances.

How bias gets by in medical research

No manufacturer is foolish enough to demand that investigators reach a specific conclusion in their research. Discovery of such a quid pro quo relationship could result in a major scandal for the company and the termination of the researchers.

The origin of bias in these manufacturer-funded studies may be subconscious, but no less effective.

Researchers and research sponsors interact at events and meetings during the time the work itself is being performance and during subsequent clinical trials.

And social science literature has clearly demonstrated people have a strong desire to reciprocate a gift.

At a minimum, grateful researchers unconsciously want to “return the favor” to their funding organizations.

And given the constant pressure in academia to “publish or perish,” this bias could be more overt as researchers fear losing funding – even if a threat is never explicitly conveyed.

Regardless of the etiology, research bias and skewed results are real when medical companies fund studies on their products. And whether it’s conscious or unconscious, bias is inappropriate in any scientific context.

Curbing bias in medical research 

Over the past decades, attempts have been made to limit the inappropriate influence of bias in research.

Today, authors of peer-reviewed articles and presenters at accredited meetings are required to disclose any personal financial benefit from the research. They must also disclose financial dealings with the manufacturer – but not any of the details.

Researchers receiving federally funded grants must register their trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and publish their results even when findings don’t favor the funding organization.

The days of sponsors suppressing unfavorable outcomes or helping investigators write their papers before submission are largely behind us.

But as the data demonstrate, today’s system is far from effective at ensuring scientific integrity.

The negative consequences of manufacturer-funded research

Physicians rely on published data to determine the best treatment for their patients. When it is contaminated by inappropriate influence, doctors can’t provide the best possible care.

As a result, patients end up with lower quality care, increased complications and higher costs.

Public and private entities could take a number of big steps to curb medical research bias.

For starters, peer-reviewed journals could refuse to publish articles funded by a single company.

If manufacturers wanted to advance medical knowledge, competing drug and device companies could contribute to a common, independent research fund for their particular industry. This would eliminate the manufacturer-researcher relationship from a study’s equation.

Alternatively, a small fee could be added to the sales price of medical devices and drugs to fund independent research. Organizations like the National Institute of Health (NIH) could oversee the distribution of these dollars.

Of course, we should expect manufacturers to resist such changes. After all, drug and device companies aspire to drive product sales, not produce unbiased research.

But the problems created by the current system are far too serious to accept the status quo.

We need to stop hiding our heads in the sand. The data is clear. Change is essential.

Robert Pearl is a physician and CEO, The Permanente Medical Group. This article originally appeared on Forbes.com. 

Prev

A cruel paradox when it comes to mental disorders

August 3, 2014 Kevin 4
…
Next

What is the most important trait in a doctor?

August 3, 2014 Kevin 21
…

Tagged as: Primary Care

Post navigation

< Previous Post
A cruel paradox when it comes to mental disorders
Next Post >
What is the most important trait in a doctor?

More by Robert Pearl, MD

  • Why retail giants will revolutionize American health care

    Robert Pearl, MD
  • ChatGPT: How generative AI is revolutionizing health care

    Robert Pearl, MD
  • 3 shocking health care statistics for 2023

    Robert Pearl, MD

More in Physician

  • Raw humanity on night float: inspiring patient encounters and overcoming challenges

    Johnathan Yao, MD, MPH
  • Revolutionizing emergency medicine: Overcoming long-term challenges with innovative solutions for physicians and patients

    Anonymous
  • The pediatric health care system tested to the limits: an inside look at the “at capacity” period during the tripledemic

    Jacqueline Bolt, MD
  • How chronic illness and disability are portrayed in media and the importance of daily choices for improved quality of life

    Juliet Morgan and Meghan Jobson
  • How biased language and stigmatizing labels affect patient care and treatment

    Joan Naidorf, DO
  • Emulating Michael Jordan’s winning mindset: a path to success for health care professionals and entrepreneurs

    Harvey Castro, MD, MBA
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • A patient’s perspective on the diminishing relationship between doctors and patients

      Michele Luckenbaugh | Conditions
    • Unmasking wage disparity in health care: the truth behind the Elmhurst Hospital physician strike

      Kevin Pho, MD | KevinMD
    • Why affirmative action is crucial for health equity and social justice in medicine

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Policy
    • How electronic health records preserve patients’ legacies in the words of oncologists

      Marc Braunstein, MD, PhD | Physician
    • Unmasking the brutal reality of gun violence in America: a call to action for unity and meaningful change

      Osmund Agbo, MD | Policy
    • Emulating Michael Jordan’s winning mindset: a path to success for health care professionals and entrepreneurs

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • The growing threat to transgender health care: implications for patients, providers, and trainees

      Carson Hartlage | Policy
    • Breaking point: the 5 reasons American doctors are dreaming of walking away from medicine

      Amol Shrikhande, MD | Physician
    • “Is your surgeon really skilled? The hidden threat to public safety in medicine.

      Gene Uzawa Dorio, MD | Physician
    • It’s time to replace the 0 to 10 pain intensity scale with a better measure

      Mark Sullivan, MD and Jane Ballantyne, MD | Conditions
    • Breaking the cycle of racism in health care: a call for anti-racist action

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Policy
    • Revolutionize your practice: the value-based care model that reduces physician burnout

      Chandravadan Patel, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Why doctors aren’t to blame for the U.S. opioid crisis [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Raw humanity on night float: inspiring patient encounters and overcoming challenges

      Johnathan Yao, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Is AI the solution for the shortage of nephrologists? ChatGPT weighs in.

      Amol Shrikhande, MD | Tech
    • Unlocking the secrets of cancer conferences: an end-of-life counselor’s journey among pharmaceutical giants

      Althea Halchuck, EJD | Conditions
    • Why HIPAA is failing and what you need to know to protect your data [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Revolutionizing emergency medicine: Overcoming long-term challenges with innovative solutions for physicians and patients

      Anonymous | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 6 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

CME Spotlights

From MedPage Today

Latest News

  • What Drug Did FDA Just Approve for COVID?
  • PET Scan for Alzheimer's Dx; Predicting Colon Cancer Survival
  • What Happens When We Classify Kids' Weight as a 'Disease'?
  • Sotagliflozin Gets FDA's Blessing for Heart Failure
  • Cardiorespiratory Monitoring Can Be Telling of Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants

Meeting Coverage

  • No Access to Routine Healthcare Biggest Barrier to HPV Vaccination
  • Trial Results Spark Talk of Curing More Metastatic Cervical Cancers
  • Cross-Border Collaboration Improves Survival in Pediatric Leukemia Patients
  • Monoclonal Antibody Reduced Need For Transfusions in Low-Risk MDS
  • Less-Invasive Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer Proves Safe, Effective
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • A patient’s perspective on the diminishing relationship between doctors and patients

      Michele Luckenbaugh | Conditions
    • Unmasking wage disparity in health care: the truth behind the Elmhurst Hospital physician strike

      Kevin Pho, MD | KevinMD
    • Why affirmative action is crucial for health equity and social justice in medicine

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Policy
    • How electronic health records preserve patients’ legacies in the words of oncologists

      Marc Braunstein, MD, PhD | Physician
    • Unmasking the brutal reality of gun violence in America: a call to action for unity and meaningful change

      Osmund Agbo, MD | Policy
    • Emulating Michael Jordan’s winning mindset: a path to success for health care professionals and entrepreneurs

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • The growing threat to transgender health care: implications for patients, providers, and trainees

      Carson Hartlage | Policy
    • Breaking point: the 5 reasons American doctors are dreaming of walking away from medicine

      Amol Shrikhande, MD | Physician
    • “Is your surgeon really skilled? The hidden threat to public safety in medicine.

      Gene Uzawa Dorio, MD | Physician
    • It’s time to replace the 0 to 10 pain intensity scale with a better measure

      Mark Sullivan, MD and Jane Ballantyne, MD | Conditions
    • Breaking the cycle of racism in health care: a call for anti-racist action

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Policy
    • Revolutionize your practice: the value-based care model that reduces physician burnout

      Chandravadan Patel, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Why doctors aren’t to blame for the U.S. opioid crisis [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Raw humanity on night float: inspiring patient encounters and overcoming challenges

      Johnathan Yao, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Is AI the solution for the shortage of nephrologists? ChatGPT weighs in.

      Amol Shrikhande, MD | Tech
    • Unlocking the secrets of cancer conferences: an end-of-life counselor’s journey among pharmaceutical giants

      Althea Halchuck, EJD | Conditions
    • Why HIPAA is failing and what you need to know to protect your data [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Revolutionizing emergency medicine: Overcoming long-term challenges with innovative solutions for physicians and patients

      Anonymous | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Curbing bias in medical research
6 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...