Big Pharma, breast cancer and childish behavior.

From here.

File this under ‘sweep it under the rug.’ It may be human nature to downplay unwanted or negative developments, but it is not considered to be good science. Nonetheless, some investigators have masked disappointing clinical trial results, such as missing primary endpoints and reporting toxicity, with selective and biased reporting for breast cancer treatments, according to a study in the Annals of Oncology.

Specifically, in one-third of all trials that failed to show a statistically significant benefit for a breast cancer medications being tested, the published studies emphasized less important outcomes in hopes of giving the results a positive spin. However, there was no association between industry or for-profit trial sponsorship and biased reporting of either efficacy or toxicity.

 

The researchers examined the results of 164 randomized, controlled Phase III trials of breast cancer treatments that were published between 1995 and 2011. They found 92 that were negative trials in which data did not demonstrate the medication had an effect on the primary endpoint. But in 59 percent of the negative trials, the authors used positive findings from secondary endpoints to cast the treatment in a positive light.

 

The researchers also found bias in the way adverse effects were discussed. Serious side effects, such as omitting mention in the abstract or conclusion, were found in 67 percent of the publications with both positive and negative findings. Moreover, trials with positive findings were twice as likely to underplay serious adverse effects compared with publications of negative studies.