“Evidenced-Based” Behavioral Medicine as Bad as Bad Pharma

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
Advertisements

Overall and subgroup analysis If the OVERALL results show highly significant evidence of a worthwhile effect of treatment, but a few subgroups of the overview.
Critical Reading VTS 22/04/09. “How to Read a Paper”. Series of articles by Trisha Greenhalgh - published in the BMJ - also available as a book from BMJ.
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
Making all research results publically available: the cry of systematic reviewers.
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS. Objectives Define systematic review and meta- analysis Know how to access appraise interpret the results of a systematic.
Systematic Reviews.
Research Techniques Made Simple: Evaluating the Strength of Clinical Recommendations in the Medical Literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE Mayra Buainain de.
Main issues Effect-size ratio Development of protocols and improvement of designs Research workforce and stakeholders Reproducibility practices and reward.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Finding Relevant Evidence
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
Acknowledgements and Conflicts of interest Dr Gurpreet Kaur Associate Professor Dept of Pharmacology Government Medical College Amritsar.
EBM Conference (Day 2). Funding Bias “He who pays, Calls the Tune” Some Facts (& Myths) Is industry research more likely to be published No Is industry.
This material was developed by Oregon Health & Science University, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator.
Module 3 Finding the Evidence: Pre-appraised Literature.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November-December 2012.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences(RCRS) Riphah International University Islamabad.
Evidence-Based Mental Health PSYC 377. Structure of the Presentation 1. Describe EBP issues 2. Categorize EBP issues 3. Assess the quality of ‘evidence’
Tim Friede Department of Medical Statistics
FIGURE 3. FOREST PLOT AFTER CONTROLLING FOR NETWORK INCONSISTENCY
Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA)
Effectiveness of yoga for hypertension: Systematic review and meta-analysis Marshall Hagins, PT, PhD1, Rebecca States,
Building an Evidence-Based Nursing Practice
Beyond database searching for relevant studies
Systematic review of Present clinical reality
Addressing Funding and Conflicts of Interest in Randomised Clinical Trials included in Cochrane Reviews Plans for the development of a ‘tool’ to assess.
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
Developing a guideline
Provocations Roundtable, EHPS, Bordeaux, 2013
ACOEM Council on Education and Academic Affairs
Evidence-based Medicine
Benefits and Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
How to Critically Appraise Literature
Reporting quality in preclinical studies Emily S Sena, PhD Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of
How to read a paper D. Singh-Ranger.
Clinical Studies Continuum
Critical Appraisal of: Systematic Review: Bisphosphanates and Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Basil Al-Saigh August 2006.
Evidence-Based Practice I: Definition – What is it?
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Evidence-Based Medicine
Clinical Study Results Publication
Chapter 7 The Hierarchy of Evidence
STROBE Statement revision
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
Critical Appraisal Dr Samantha Rutherford
Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES study Jelena Savović1, Becky Turner2, David.
Pilot Studies: What we need to know
Geir Smedslund, Ph.D.: Diakonhjemmet Hospital (DH)
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing
Systematic Review (Advanced_Course_Module_6_Appendix)
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Critical Appraisal & Literature review
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Level of Evidence Lecture 4.
Bianca A. Simonsmeier Maja Flaig Michael Schneider
Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence July-August, 2018
Systematic Review (Advanced Course: Module 6 Appendix)
Evidence-Based Public Health
Use of the hCONSORT Criteria as a Reporting Standard for Herbal Interventions for Common Dermatoses – A Systematic Review J. Ornelas, MD, MAS 1, E. Routt,
Evidence-based Practice in Psychology (EBPP)
Critical Appraisal & Literature review
Evidence Based Diagnosis
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Presentation transcript:

“Evidenced-Based” Behavioral Medicine as Bad as Bad Pharma James C. Coyne, Ph.D. University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the Netherlands jcoynester@gmail.com

Introduction to ICBM Symposium Groningen, August 2014 Are findings in behavioral medicine believable? Nick Brown. Physical health outcomes in positive psychology: Weak evidence for strong claims. James C. Coyne, Moritz Heene, Gozde Ozakinci. Unsafe Dependence of Meta Analyses in Behavioral Medicine on Failsafe N. Daniel Lakens. How likely is it an intervention study will replicate? The pain literature as an example.

John Ioannidis documented many positive findings in the biomedical literature do not replicate and many apparent “discoveries” turn out to be exaggerated or simply false. Many apparent discoveries are created by a combination of confirmatory bias, flexible rules of design, data analysis and reporting and significance chasing.

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false” Ioannidis, JPA. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2: 696-701. Ioannidis, JPA. (2005). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294: 218-228. Young, NS., Ioannidis, JPA. et al. (2008). Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLOS Medicine 5: 1418-1422.

Ben Goldacre Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients.

Efforts at reform Preregistration of clinical trials make it more difficult to hide negative trials or alter analytic plans after results are known. Reporting standards ensure more transparent and detailed article so results can be independently validated. Reporting standards and pre-registration of plans for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Making data available for independent reanalysis.

Our modest contribution to reform Roseman, M, Milette, K, Bero, LA, Coyne, JC, Lexchin, J., Turner, EH, & Thombs, BD. (2011). Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA, 2011;305(10):1008-17. Roseman, M, Turner, EH, Lexchin, J., Coyne, JC, Bero, LA, & Thombs, BD. (2012). Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ, 2012; 345.

We documented with association of source of funding with claimed size of effects. We proposed considering conflict of interest as a moderator, source of heterogeneity, and another risk of bias in Cochrane risk of bias assessment. The Cochrane Collaboration agreed.

Cochrane Risk of Bias Sequence generation. Allocation concealment. Blinding of participants, investigators, outcome assessors. Incomplete outcome data. Selective outcome reporting. Other threats to validity.

Prof Archibald Cochrane, CBE (1909 - 1988) The Cochrane Collaboration is named in honor of Archie Cochrane, a British researcher. In 1979 he wrote, "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomized controlled trials”

Clinical psychology and behavioral medicine CONSORT adopted later and less consistently than Biomedicine.* Preregistration of trials is now encouraged, but enforcement is lax. Conflict of interest less acknowledged, although investigator allegiance pervasive and a risk of bias. *APS (Association of Psychological Science) journals not yet compliant.

Trickle down of reform Changes forced upon Pharma slowly and inconsistently reach clinical psychology. Larger data sets allow exploration of issues such as choice of control groups and investigator allegiance. Behavioral Medicine adopts changes occurring in clinical psychology later and inconsistently.

Clinical psychology and behavioral medicine RCT literature dominated by methodologically flawed, underpowered studies obtaining significant results at statistically improbable rate. Weak control groups, unusual to have active control group. Flexible rules of design and selective reporting of outcomes chosens after results are known. Strong investigator allegiance effects.

Evidence-Based Medicine developed to weed out ineffective treatments. Evidence-Based Behavioral Medicine developed to demonstrate that treatments worked and should be disseminated and reimbursed.

The Two Tribes of EBBM: Dodoists and Skeptical Dogs

Beware of Professional Organization Involvement as a Risk of Bias

Guidelines for Guidelines Shaneyfelt T. In guidelines we cannot trust. Arch Intern Med;172:1633-1634. Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines (2011). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Loblaw, D. A., Prestrud, A. A., Somerfield, M. R., et al. (2012). American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: Formal systematic review–based consensus methodology. J Clin Oncol, 30(25), 3136-3140.

AHA Advisory on Screening for Depression Not Guideline-Congruent! Ziegelstein RC, Brett D, Thombs BD, Coyne JC, de Jonge P. Routine Screening for Depression in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: Never Mind. Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology. 2009;54(10):886-90.   Thombs, B. D., Jewett, L. R., Knafo, R., Coyne, J. C., & Ziegelstein, R. C. (2009). Learning from history: a commentary on the American Heart Association Science Advisory on depression screening. American heart journal, 158(4), 503.

Beware “Official” meta-analyses (Critiqued here) Coyne JC, Thombs BD, Hagedoorn M. Ain’t Necessarily So: Review and Critique of Recent Meta-Analyses of Behavioral Medicine Interventions in Health Psychology. Health Psychology. 2010;29(2):107-16.   Coyne, J. C. (2012). Re: Meta-analysis of Efficacy of Interventions Elevated Depressive Symptoms in Adults Diagnosed With Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, djs408.

SBM Initiative Meta-analyses generated by professional organizations should receive special critical scrutiny because of tendency to gloss over limits of literature in order to promote the services of their membership.

“We are grateful to the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) for selecting the authorship group. This article is one of three meta-analyses that have been undertaken under the aegis of the SBM Evidence-Based Behavioral Medicine Committee; the other two meta-analyses examine the effects of psychosocial interventions on depression and fatigue among patients with cancer.”

What to watch for in meta analyses commissioned by professional organizations Precommitment to conclusion that interventions work and are ready for dissemination and reimbursement. Ignoring of preponderance of methodologically flawed, unpowered sources of bias. Broad inclusion of diverse interventions into one category. Ignoring statistical heterogeneity. Weak assessment of risk of bias (Cochrane criteria are seldom used).

How This Symposium Came About

EHPS 2013: Improving the Credibility of Health Psychology Intervention Research: Problems and Solutions Ozakinci, G., Whitehead, R., Sobota, A., Coyne, JC. Inaccurate Abstracts in Health Psychology: The Problem and an Easily Implementable Solution. Coyne, JC. Too good to be true: Health psychology depends too much on positive underpowered studies.

Picking up collaborators on the Internet

Nick Brown

Moritz Heene

Daniel Lakens