Neurologist

joined 7 months ago
 

Summary:

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. 

This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. 

A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. 

Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. 

Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. 

Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. 

Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. 

In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. 

These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. 

Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.

My Comment: We need better ethics and more rigorous methodology.

 

Sorry but I had to share this, it’s gold, and such an on point critique. And very relevant for anyone informing clinical decisions with RCTs.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Damn I can’t find the original gif from the movie. Here’s a low quality edit I could find.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The placebo effect is way overstated in popular culture compared to what medicine has proven.

A recent cochrane review showed the only symptoms it had a large body of evidence showing it worked was “pain” and “nausea”, both things we do not know how to measure so they are by definition subjective and patient reported. The placebo effect changes remarkably little in the body, the changes being in the person’s perception.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 12 points 2 months ago

No it’s not.

We usually have guidelines and protocols to follow which minimise the chance of harm and standardise care. Here we’re left with nothing, unsure what we’re allowed to do or not, unsure what we should do. There have already been multiple reports of mismanagement of pre-natal care resulting in deaths because of this.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

Crispr is the exception:

  1. it’s massively expensive
  2. it can cure multiple illnesses and perform loads of other functions

Most proposals for cures are a fairly simple (and cheap) therapeutic target that will only work for one condition or even just a subset of cases within that condition.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That’s the lenient interpretation I’d hope.

But we’re not an alternative medicine group or anything. If you look into their shareholder meetings the public info seems to be that they judge whether investments are worth it by potential return on investment, and well a lifelong treatment is always going to be more profitable for them than a cure.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Completely true. But there would be fewer of them.

It’s crazy that when my research team comes up with a therapeutic target we believe might lead to curing a disease, we get crickets from drug companies. But when we present therapeutic targets for long term treatment, we get lots of interest.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 7 points 2 months ago

Sounds like my colleagues. But since medicine is a hierarchical culture that values conformity over critical thought, that type of behaviour tends to actually work in favour of the person.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

Although it’s true that nurses can have some fucked up beliefs, don’t underestimate doctors. Some of my colleagues are ableist, misogynistic, bigoted, power hungry, with a superiority complex. I think these are the kind of Gps and specialists making r/medicine so awful.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 53 points 2 months ago (15 children)

That aside, as a medical professional, I have to say r/medicine is such a cesspool of a subreddit, and I don’t say this lightly.

They regularly ridicule patients and specific conditions, harbour prejudiced views towards poor people and people from minority groups, and generally push pseudoscientific nonsense.

It’s a really disheartening subreddit to visit when you’ve got your patient’s best interests at heart.

Apart from that, I do agree with their view on UnitedHealth’s CEO.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

In general it’s terrifying, we will need to be especially kind, helpful, and understanding to patients who risk losing disability benefits and similar through cuts. I don’t know how much we’ll be able to trust federal research either. I’m not too familiar with how the NIH etc is structured so I’m not sure how much RFK and Trump will be able to change things.

In my field I’m worried about a complete federal erasure of Long COVID, banishing it without funding and expertise in a sort of semi-recognised void. Clearly the incoming government does not want to acknowledge any negatives of COVID at all, and I’m worried it will lead to much suffering.

[–] Neurologist@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

if youve got to any, could you tell me what you think? It’s always useful to know what I should recommend to my patients to show their friends and family.

view more: next ›