Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 857–874 | Cite as

Conflicts of Interest, Selective Inertia, and Research Malpractice in Randomized Clinical Trials: An Unholy Trinity

  • Vance W. BergerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Recently a great deal of attention has been paid to conflicts of interest in medical research, and the Institute of Medicine has called for more research into this important area. One research question that has not received sufficient attention concerns the mechanisms of action by which conflicts of interest can result in biased and/or flawed research. What discretion do conflicted researchers have to sway the results one way or the other? We address this issue from the perspective of selective inertia, or an unnatural selection of research methods based on which are most likely to establish the preferred conclusions, rather than on which are most valid. In many cases it is abundantly clear that a method that is not being used in practice is superior to the one that is being used in practice, at least from the perspective of validity, and that it is only inertia, as opposed to any serious suggestion that the incumbent method is superior (or even comparable), that keeps the inferior procedure in use, to the exclusion of the superior one. By focusing on these flawed research methods we can go beyond statements of potential harm from real conflicts of interest, and can more directly assess actual (not potential) harm.

Keywords

Conflict of interest Incentives Selective inertia Technology transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The review team offered insightful comments that resulted in a vastly improved revision.

References

  1. Alperson, S., & Berger, V. W. (2013). Beyond Jadad: Some essential features in trial quality. Clinical Investigation, 3(12), 1119–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ, 308(6924), 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, V. W. (2000). Pros and cons of permutation tests in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 1319–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, V. W. (2002). Improving the information content of categorical clinical trial endpoints. Controlled Clinical Trials, 23(5), 502–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, V. W. (2004). On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(6), 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, V. W. (2005). Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomized clinical trials. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, V. W. (2006a). Do not use blocked randomization. Headache, 46(2), 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger, V. W. (2006b). Misguided precedent is not a reason to use permuted blocks. Headache, 46(7), 1210–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berger, V. W. (2006c). Varying block sizes does not conceal the allocation. Journal of Critical Care, 21(2), 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berger, V. W. (2006d). Is the Jadad score the proper evaluation of trials. Journal of Rheumatology, 33(8), 1710.Google Scholar
  11. Berger, V. W., & Alperson, S. Y. (2009). A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials, 4(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger, V. W., Grant, W. C., & Vazquez, L. F. (2010). Sensitivity designs for preventing bias replication in randomized clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 19(4), 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger, V. W., & Ivanova, A. (2002). Adaptive tests for ordinal data. JMASM, 1(2), 269–280.Google Scholar
  14. Berger, V. W., Ivanova, A., & Deloria-Knoll, M. (2003a). Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Statistics in Medicine, 22(19), 3017–3028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berger, V. W., Permutt, T., & Ivanova, A. (1998). The convex hull test for ordered categorical data. Biometrics, 54(4), 1541–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berger, V. W., Rezvani, A., & Makarewicz, V. A. (2003b). Direct effect on validity of response run-in selection in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24(2), 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berger, V. W., & Vali, B. (2011). Intent-to-randomize corrections for missing data resulting from run-in selection bias in clinical trials for chronic conditions. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 21(2), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bookman, A. M., Williams, K. S. A., & Shainhouse, J. Z. (2004). Effect of a topical diclofenac solution for relieving symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized controlled trial. CMAJ, 171, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bridoux, V., Moutel, G., Roman, H., Kianifard, B., Michot, F., Herve, C., et al. (2012). Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 1.Google Scholar
  20. Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H. J., Blackburn, B., et al. (1981). A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chaudhry, S., Schroter, S., Smith, R., & Morris, J. (2002). Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomized trial. BMJ, 325, 1391–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & The Reporting Bias Group. (2013). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fayers, P. M., & King, M. (2008). A highly significant difference in baseline characteristics: The play of chance of evidence of a more selective game? Quality of Life Research, 17, 1121–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geary, R. C. (1947). Testing for normality. Biometrika, 34, 209–242.Google Scholar
  25. Harrington, A. (1997). The placebo effect. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobs, A. (2003). Clarification needed about possible bias and statistical testing. BMJ USA, 3, 93.Google Scholar
  29. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. La Torre, G., Chiaradia, G., Gianfanga, F., De Laurentis, A., Boocia, S., & Ricciardi, W. (2006). Quality assessment in meta- analysis. Italian Journal of Public Health, 3, 44–50.Google Scholar
  31. Lexchin, J. (2012a). Those who have the gold make the evidence: How the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lexchin, J. (2012b). Sponsorship bias in clinical research. The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 24(4), 233–242.Google Scholar
  33. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. A., & Bero, L. (2012). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. The Cochrane Library 12.Google Scholar
  34. Matts, J. P., & McHugh, R. B. (1983). Conditional markov chain designs for accrual clinical trials. Biometrical Journal, 25, 563–577.Google Scholar
  35. Palys, K. E., & Berger, V. W. (2013). A note on the jadad score as an efficient tool for measuring trial quality. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 17(6), 1170–1171. doi: 10.1007/s11605-012-2106-0. (Epub 2012 Dec 12. PubMed PMID: 23233271).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panati, C. (1989). Panati’s extraordinary endings of practically everything and everybody. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  37. Perlman, P., Possen, B. H., Legat, V. D., Rubenacker, A. S., Bockiger, U., & Stieben-Emmerling, L. (2013). When will we see people of negative height. Significance, 10(1), 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soares, J. F., & Wu, C. F. J. (1982). Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Communications in Statistics Theory and Methods, 12, 2017–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cytel (1995). StatXact-3 for Windows: Statistical software for exact nonparametric inference. Cytel Software Corporation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Towheed, T. E. (2006). Pennsaid therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 567–573.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Cancer Institute and University of Maryland Baltimore County, Biometry Research GroupNational Cancer InstituteRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations