if anyone's interested, i was poking around this weekend and discovered something i think is interesting about the origins of the term "the gold standard" with respect to levodopa.

Who Coined the Term "The Gold Standard" for Levodopa?

if anyone knows whether there is anything one can do when one discovers a crucial disclosure was not make in a paper published 10 years ago, please let me know.

boann

boann, I found some information in the middle of the night last night...one of my absolutely no sleep nights...but because of the source, I felt I should ask for permission to use the content.

I hope to have a reply today. I will let you know if the answer is no. If it is yes, I will post the content.

hi carolyn,

can you tell me if it is the sort of thing where i should take down my post until i see it?

also my apologies for not having answered your question regarding clinical trials - i started several times - just never finished it, partly because i began to feel like it was a) impossible, and b) something that would interest no one but me.

i have derived other stats from my analysis that i may share - we'll see.

thanks,
boann

I don't see the need to take down you post. I don't think I will answer you questions, but I did find a bit of infomation that I can post...if permission is given.

You have a question, maybe someone else will have an answer, maybe not.

Hi Carolyn,

Thank you! Which questions do you mean? the one about whether there is anything one can do about a 10-year old apparent failure to disclose?

Boann

following is excerpted from:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/...ml#skip300x250

"Last week, a study published in the British Medical Journal found reviews of drug studies funded by pharmaceutical companies reached similar conclusions to similar reviews done without industry support.

But studies backed by drug companies tended to recommend an experimental drug without reservation compared with the independent Cochrane reviews, Peter Gotzsche of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his team found.

"Industry supported reviews of drugs should be read with caution as they were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and had more favourable conclusions than the corresponding Cochrane reviews," the Danish team concluded.

The researchers looked for bias in meta-analysis reviews that combine the results of multiple studies. To make a fair comparison, the researchers used studies that were published within two years of one another and looked at the same drugs and diseases."



the following is sumarized from an article in "new scientist" Oct 14, 2006, p 6:
article begins with this sentence: "money talks, and the drug industry's dollar talks loud and clear through the pages of leading medical journal"

this team was looking for bias in meta-analysis, comparing multiple drug sudy results to determine if the experimental drug is as effective as drugs already in use.--they matched studies that were published within 2 yrs of one another that looked at the same drugs used for the same diseases. The studies that did not have drug industry funding reached the same conclusions as did this team. studies that were funded by the pharm industry recommended the experimental drug without reservation, even though the effects of treatments of older drugs were similar to the experimental one--
this team found the reviews done with industry $$ were biased in their methods--they would only use studies held in the company's own data bank--the author maintains he now ignores any meta analysis funded by drug cos.