recce101 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Please see this current article on MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27283197/ Aloha, Ned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyW Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Thanks Ned !!!! More money for funds More funds for research More research more treatments More treatments more survivors More survivors more support More support more money!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fillise Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 That was an interesting read Ned. I've long been suspicious of all the pink products and whether they really generate money for breast cancer research or just seek to sell products. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpawelski Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 More chemotherapy is given for breast cancer than for any other form of cancer and there have been more published reports of clinical trials for breast cancer than for any other form of cancer. And the recent review published online by the The Oncologist medical journal reminds us that less than 20% of registered clinical trials of cancer drugs are eventaully published in medical journals. The publication rate was particularly low for industry-sponsored studies, such as those funded by drugmakers (just 5.9% compared to 59% for studies sponsored by collaborative research networks). Of published studies, nearly two-thirds had positive results in that the treatment worked as hoped. The remaining one-third had negative results like the outcome was disappointing or did not merit further consideration of the tested treatment, they report. The finding raises concern about publication bias in cancer treatment trials, according to the researchers, Scott Ramsey and John Scoggins of University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. The researchers suspect the rate of negative results is much higher in the studies that have gone unpublished. “It is likely that many unpublished studies contain important information that could influence future research and present practice policy,” they wrote. Of course, we know why a registered trial may not be published, some fail and a researcher may decide the result doesn’t enhance knowledge or one’s reputation. And some sponsors don’t want negative results out there. Same goes for some journal editors. But “unpublished trials may have special importance in oncology, due to the toxicity and/or expense of many therapies,” they wrote. In other words, the knowledge base is incomplete. And who does that help? Source: Pharmalot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.