Fake facts and alternative truths in medical research

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Hofmann, Bjørn ^a,b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Conflict of interest; Mammography screening; Mortality; Overdiagnosis; Polarized research

Indexed keywords

AGED; ATTITUDE; BREAST TUMOR; CONFLICT; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; ODDS RATIO; PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS; TRUST;

AGED; ATTITUDE; BIAS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST;

EID: 85041134573     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0243-z     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
2. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712.
3. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116-26.
4. Begley CG. Reproducibility: six red flags for suspect work. Nature. 2013;497(7450):433-4.
5. Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, Ellis LM, Zwelling L. A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63221.
6. Errington TM, Iorns E, Gunn W, Tan FE, Lomax J, Nosek BA. An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. elife. 2014;3:e04333.
7. Collaboration OS. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.
8. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294(2):218-28.
9. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004;170(4):477-80.
10. Ahn R, Woodbridge A, Abraham A, Saba S, Korenstein D, Madden E, Boscardin WJ, Keyhani S. Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6770.
11. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science (New York, NY). 2013;342(6154):60-5.
12. Ziman J. Is science losing its objectivity? Nature. 1996;382(6594):751-4.
13. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514.
14. Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Pereira ÂG, Ravetz J, Saltelli A, Strand R, van der Sluijs JP: Science on the verge: Amazon book, in the series "the rightful place of science" consortium for science, Policy & Outcomes Tempe, AZ and Washington, DC; 2016.
15. Popper K. Science: Conjectures and refutations. In: McGrew T, Alspector-Kelly M, Allhoff F, editors. The. philosophy of science: an historical anthology. Oxford: Wiley; 2009. p. 471-88.
16. Ploug T, Holm S. Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities. J Med Ethics. 2015;41(4):356-8.
17. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH, Vitak B, Allgood PC, Chen TH, Yen AM, Smith RA. Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the breast screening Programme in England. J Med Screen. 2010;17(1):25-30.
18. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ, Zahl P-H, Mæhlen J. Why mammography screening has not lived up to expectations from the randomised trials. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(1):15-21.
19. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(9):605-13.
20. Moore DA, Loewenstein G. Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Soc Justice Res. 2004;17(2):189-202.
21. Earp BD, Hauskeller M. Binocularity in bioethics - and beyond: A Review of Erik Parens, Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking. Am J Bioeth. 2016;16(2):W3-W6.
22. Parens E. Shaping our selves: on technology, flourishing, and a habit of thinking. USA: Oxford University Press; 2014.
23. Earp BD. The unbearable asymmetry of bullshit. Health Watch. 2016;101:4-5.
24. Brawley OW, O'Regan RM. Breast cancer screening: time for rational discourse. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2800-2.
25. Paci E. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen. 2012;19(Suppl 1):5-13.
26. Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, Puliti D, Duffy SW, Group EW. European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23(7):1159-63.
27. Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Zappa M, Manneschi G, Crocetti E, Paci E. Balancing harms and benefits of service mammography screening programs: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):1.
28. The Research Council of Norway. Research-based evaluation of the norwegian breast cancer screening program. Final report. Oslo: The Research Council of Norway; 2015.
29. Hofvind S, Roman M, Sebuodegard S, Falk RS. Balancing the benefits and detriments among women targeted by the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. J Med Screen. 2016;23(4):203-9.
30. Gøtzsche P, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Copenhagen: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2011.
31. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5.
32. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778-86.
33. US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: breast cancer: screening. Rockville: MD USPSTF; 2016.