The so-called “gold standard” of clinical research is largely fool’s gold

The next time you hear a mainstream “expert” tout the gold standard research of drug trials, keep this in mind… There’s a lot of fool’s gold mixed in with that gold.

Two years ago, medical journal editors established Medical Publishing Insights and Practices. MPIP grapples with issues of integrity in published research.

Recently, the group released a list of recommendations for medical publishing. The suggestions include more transparency in reporting adverse events. Also: Stop the ghostwriting. Experts often allow attachment of their names to papers they didn’t write.

Ed Silverman at Pharmalot asked two Yale School of Medicine professors for comments on the recommendations. Both agree on two points. The proposals are too limited. And they’re only suggestions. There’s no enforcement.

For one prof, the recommendations are also inadvertently revealing. They imply that unethical practices “are just as widespread as we believed.”

Surprised? Not a bit. This is the “gold standard” the FDA relies on to approve drugs for millions of patients.

Sources:
“Trying to Close a Credibility Gap in Research” Ed Silverman, Pharmalot, 5/16/12, pharmalot.com