And there was Richard Horton saying how clever it was for these guys to wager five million quid that they could prove the patients' philosophy was wrong! That is some equipoise.
I suppose the clever bit is wagering someone else's 5 million quid.
And there was Richard Horton saying how clever it was for these guys to wager five million quid that they could prove the patients' philosophy was wrong! That is some equipoise.
Interested in where the protocols covering definition of Conflict of Interest in medical research are. I may be very dense, but haven’t seen this in all the info on this thread and elsewhere.
Is there an ‘industry’ definition, laid down by professional, ethical or regulatory body?
Are there different definitions applicable to different types of research eg drugs vs procedures vs therapies?
Or does each journal set their own definition?
Or just a convention that can be narrowly or broadly defined as felt appropriate - and who decides whether views or narrow criteria apply?
Ie to what objective standard(s) is/are the PACE Trial authors, investigators and therapists accountable?
Is there an ‘industry’ definition, laid down by professional, ethical or regulatory body?
Interested in where the protocols covering definition of Conflict of Interest in medical research are. I may be very dense, but haven’t seen this in all the info on this thread and elsewhere.
Is there an ‘industry’ definition, laid down by professional, ethical or regulatory body?
Are there different definitions applicable to different types of research eg drugs vs procedures vs therapies?
Or does each journal set their own definition?
Or just a convention that can be narrowly or broadly defined as felt appropriate - and who decides whether views or narrow criteria apply?
Ie to what objective standard(s) is/are the PACE Trial authors, investigators and therapists accountable?
COI is a very, very grey area. When I worked at The Lancet, CoI was considered if you'd received any payment by Big Pharma. But I realised how problematic this is when I worked in research, because often drugs companies will pay for you to attend conferences, will pay for you to eat while at the conference, and will sponsor the talks you want to attend. And they all pile in, so there is no perceived favouritism. And the work I did had nothing to do with the medications anyway, so what did it matter.
And I guess for these guys it's the same. They don't see that they are being influenced as such by taking money or working "for free" for insurance companies and the like. They already hold the views they hold. They are simply advising others. And all of this is already in the public domain anyway, etc, etc. There is no conflict; those companies interests are their interests; so why declare it?
Interesting.I remember that round about the time of the PACE trial starting people were complaining that PW (and maybe others) listed COIs in US medical journals which had strict rules but was happy to say no conflicts in UK ones. Can't remember details though, maybe someone else can. It implies that he knew what he was doing just getting away with as much as possible.
Can't remember details though, maybe someone else can.
White said this in an email from Co-Cure (will try and find the date but circa May 2004)
"
3. It is wrong that the psychiatrists carrying out this research are
themselves employed to provide the therapies being studied at the newly
operational ME/CFS centres. It is unethical for people with proven
commercial interests in these studies to be designing and running this
£2.5m trial, given the proven evidence of their commercial interest in the
desired outcome.
The actual position: None of the psychiatrists are employed to provide any
of these therapies. No researcher will make any personal financial gain
from these trials.
....
Dr Peter White
Professor Michael Sharpe
Professor Trudie Chalder
Dr Alison Wearden
"
Again it would be interesting to see what levels of funding the authors received for subsequent trials which might not have happened had it not been for PACEs 'success'.........TC certainly seems to have done very nicely in terms of her CBT treatments.But career progression doesn't seem to be a CoI
Again it would be interesting to see what levels of funding the authors received for subsequent trials which might not have happened had it not been for PACEs 'success'.........TC certainly seems to have done very nicely in terms of her CBT treatments.
Director, Chronic Fatigue Service |Professor
Professor Chalder is the director of the Chronic Fatigue Service as well as a professor of cognitive behavioural psychotherapy with the Department of Psychological Medicine, at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.
Other roles
Professor Chalder gives national and international lectures on CFS. She has been closely involved in developing and evaluating treatments for adolescents and adults with CFS. These studies have contributed to recommendations made in the NICE guidelines.
Again it would be interesting to see what levels of funding the authors received for subsequent trials which might not have happened had it not been for PACEs 'success'.........TC certainly seems to have done very nicely in terms of her CBT treatments.