The article talks about the influence of Clinical Trials in determining apparent-benefit ratio. It analyses the effects of evidence based medicine, whereby, outcomes of two trials could lead to the alteration of unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness. Reviews from the food and drug administration (FDA) were among the methodologies used to arrive at the findings. It included about twelve antidepressant agents covering a total of 12564 patients. A systematic literature research was then conducted to identify corresponding publications (Turner et al., 254). Reported trials during this research and its published outcome were then critically compared to the FDA outcomes. Further comparison was plotted against published reports with effect size got from the FDA data.
The results showed that among the seventy four FDA studies that were registered, 31% representing about 3449 participants were never published. The association of the study outcome predicted whether studies were published or not. About 37 published studies projected positive results. In this bracket, only one positive result viewed was not published. Those that projected questionable/negative results, with an exception of only three, were either not published or published in a bias way to convey a positive result. An overall outcome showed that 94% of trials conducted were positive. However, this was contrarily to the FDA analysis that showed only 51% were positive. Going by these outcomes, it becomes literary had to determine whether or not the failure to provide manuscripts by stakeholders: authors and sponsors, resulted to the bias. Therefore, selective clinical trials reporting may in one way or another have an adverse consequence for study participants, researchers, patients and even the professionals in the health care sector. In most of the times, the bias will likely be towards the less participatory parties and apprehend the active ones (Turner et al., 256).
Another research that concurs with the discussion of this topic is the research of the Contrane central register of controlled trials. Drug sponsor medical department the participants in two ways. The first was through telephone or e-mail. The second one was the contact by means of certified latter sent with some conditions. Such conditions included a deadline for responding and so forth. The analysis from the two responses in the question whether study results had been published, an adverse gap immerged. Therefore it was hard to arrive at a conclusion. However, this scenario suggested that results were not yet published.
In my own account, I agree completely on the extent to which results publication are always manipulated. This is because the parties conducting such researches do have their interest in which they need to serve in the first place. Their interest becomes a priority. Although there are measures in place to guide the contribution of each and every party participating in an investigation, to some extent, ethical concerns must immerge. The reasons behind which organizations may opt to publish or not to publish or publish manipulative and biased results may somehow not be publicly explained. This may be done for the purpose of safeguarding some sensitive issues that could bring severe effects if rightly reported. Depending on the situation/condition, results publications may be positively or negatively biased to install positive, desired effects for the general good of society at large. For example, manipulation the number of infected individuals with a particular disease could be done purposely to bring public awareness of the disease so that people take the right preventive measures.
Works Cited
Turner, Erick H., Annette M. Mathews, Robert A. Tell, and Robert Rosenthal. "selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy." The new England Journal of Medicine (2008): 260. Web. 17 Jan. 2008.
