Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature

Author:

Kostoff Ronald N.1

Affiliation:

1. School of Public Policy , Georgia Institute of Technology , Gainesville , VA 20155 , USA

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the under-reporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature. Design/methodology/approach A four-step approach is used: (1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy; (2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature; (3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and (4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature. Findings This review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances (1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or (2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the ‘premiere’ biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literature will have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database. Research limitations The main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives. Practical implications Almost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse. Originality/value This review has examined a much wider range of technical and non-technical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference62 articles.

1. Amiri, A.R., Kanesalingam, K., Cro, S., & Casey, A.T.H. (2014). Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research? Spine Journal, 14(2), 308–314.

2. Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.

3. Anonymous. (2012). Corporate influence over clinical research: Considering the alternatives. Prescrire International, 21(129), 191–194.

4. BA. (2009). Trends in autism and cell phones. Belly Armor. Retrieved on September 22, 2016, from https://www.bellyarmor.com/radiation/health-risks/autism/.

5. Bero, L.A. (2005). Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports, 120(2), 200–208.

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3