When is lack of scientific integrity a reason for retracting a paper? A case study.(2020) Fiedorowicz et al. (about homeopathy for CFS)

This, in an editorial in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research:

We found the presentation by Dr. Relton disturbing on multiple grounds. This admission of unethical behavior calls her scientific
integrity into question. The premise for her actions rests on an errant assumption widespread among clinicians, based on anecdotal experi ence, that one possesses an ultimate knowledge of what works and doesn’t work without the need for rigorous study. The history of medicine, unfortunately, has been littered by countless treatments that practitioners believed in and dispensed, only to be later found not beneficial or even harmful [4]. This underscores the importance of rigorous study for treatments where equipoise exists in the scientific community, as it arguably did for the use of homeopathy for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Click to expand...


Reporting on the integrity of the blind has merit and is especially valuable when dealing with subjective outcomes for which there is a greater risk of bias due to any unblinding [12]. Un-blinded assessors of subjective binary outcomes may exaggerate odds ratios by an average of 36% [13]. Subjective outcomes are frequently used in studies that fall within this journal’s scope, at the interface of psychology and medicine. We recommend assessing the integrity of the blind for any clinical trial, particularly those utilizing subjective outcomes akin to the primary outcomes of the Weatherley-Jones et al. study in question.
Click to expand...

@cassava7 - perhaps there is something here that could contribute to your IQWIG submission?
 
We recommend assessing the integrity of the blind for any clinical trial, particularly those utilizing subjective outcomes

How about you just make it an explicit policy to not even consider, let alone publish, trials that lack adequate controls?
 
Hutan said:
This, in an editorial in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research:






@cassava7 - perhaps there is something here that could contribute to your IQWIG submission?
Click to expand...
Possibly, but contrary to the 36% figure from the Hjóbratsson paper, the MetaBLIND study is often cited nowadays to justify that blinding is not essential for PROMs despite its methodological shortcomings. @ME/CFS Skeptic has had a helpful article published about this in the Journal of Health Psychology, though.
 
It wasn't so much the percentage figure, more something like:
Even the editors of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research have acknowledged that history provides many examples where practitioners of medicine have believed that a treatment was sound, when it turned out to be ineffective. Further, they note the importance of good quality blinding when there are subjective outcomes.
 
cassava7 said:
the MetaBLIND study is often cited nowadays to justify that blinding is not essential for PROMs despite its methodological shortcomings.
Click to expand...
We have hard evidence that PROMs are unreliable for ME (and also for asthma). I doubt they are isolated examples.

Not using adequate control of the variables breaks all the fundamental rules of science.
 
Hutan said:
It wasn't so much the percentage figure, more something like:
Even the editors of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research have acknowledged that history provides many examples where practitioners of medicine have believed that a treatment was sound, when it turned out to be ineffective. Further, they note the importance of good quality blinding when there are subjective outcomes.
Click to expand...

And I've blogged about this editorial of theirs, and yet they still keep on publishing studies with the design we all know is shit.
 
dave30th said:
And I've blogged about this editorial of theirs, and yet they still keep on publishing studies with the design we all know is shit.
Click to expand...

If I may be so bold -and slightly off topic- I would pay money to have access to audio an collection of you reading out your Trial by Error blogs perhaps one short piece per month?

One of the ‘I’ve written to you about this issue before and still not received a satisfactory response’ genre might not be too onerous? :geek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom