Outcome Reporting bias in Exercise Oncology trials (OREO): a cross-sectional study, 2021, Singh, Twomey et al

Yes, regardless of the statistics, it's an approach that should be used a lot more when choosing which research proposals to allocate funds to.

I recall one proposal to trial a mixed supplement for ME/CFS. Some of the evaluators thought that it would be a nice project as it might produce a treatment - and it would be blinded, so surely there would be no bias.

The researchers had done a previous study on the same supplement mix for a different disease. There was a peer review that could be found online asking them to report that there was a null primary outcome in the abstract - they had neglected to do that in the pre-publication version. In the final version the null result was mentioned in passing, along with the widest array of excuses I had ever seen in a report; proposals for tweaking the mixture, suggestions that the length of study was not long enough. They even blamed their trial participants, suggesting that only the most treatment resistant patients turned up for trials and that substance abuse by the participants (remember this was a blinded, controlled study) had skewed results.

The proposed trial had the same supplement mix, and the same trial length, just a different disease, and a similar hand wavey 'inflammation' sort of explanation. It was clear that even a null result in the proposed trial would not be assumed to be evidence against a particular component of the mix, or a different dosage or recipe, and there was a significant risk that even a null result would be spun as a success.

It's easy to think of some pretty egregious research where the researchers just keep getting funded to produce more, often quite harmful and certainly wasteful, rubbish.

If people tasked with the job of allocating funds to research took their job seriously (and most often I think these roles are done voluntarily, squeezed in between other 'more important' things - perhaps they should be paid to devote time to it), then they would research track records. They would get opinions from knowledgeable patient organisations. And then they would not give more funds to researchers who switch outcomes without declaring it, or don't report results honestly. If that happened more, then researchers would either adapt, or go and do something else. There needs to be consequences.

 

Thanks, Jo.

It's been a tough 12 months, but I am slowly improving and am just dipping my toe in here and reading a few posts.

I'll not be active for a while.

Thanks all for the good wishes.

(And please no replies or I'll get into trouble with the other mods for hijacking a thread. Hehe.)