Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:629 (22 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39520.521146.3A
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Lenzer and Brownlee hit the nail on the head regarding the important issue of data access.1 We owe all human subjects who volunteer for behavioural and medical research more than they have been getting. For years, the top scientific journals have required that all clinical trials be publicly registered before data collection begins, in order to be eligible for publication. This was an important step designed to reduce publication bias, but it did not go far enough. The recent FDA Amendments Act mandating public access to data summaries is another step in the right direction, but, as Lenzer and Brownlee say, this too may not go far enough. Several examples from the psychopharmacology literature have shown that nothing short of total public access to raw human subject data on efficacy and safety will be enough to ensure that data are independently and thoroughly evaluated.2 3 Issues of distorted or selective publication
David O Antonuccio, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, David Healy, professor
1 University of Nevada School of Medicine, 401 W 2nd St, Suite 216, Reno, NV 89503, USA, 2 North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff LL57 2PW
oliver2@aol.com