Rapid Responses to:

VIEWS & REVIEWS: Joe Collier Inside big pharma's box of tricks BMJ 2007; 334: 209 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Bias

Martin Toal MFPM FFPHM   (31 January 2007)

Bias 31 January 2007
Martin Toal MFPM FFPHM, Clinical Research RG41 4TN Send response to journal: Re: Bias	I imagine Joe Collier subscribes to one of the principles of critical appraisal about taking into account declarations of interest by those who offer opinions or data, and adjusting one's judgement accordingly. Even leaving aside the issue of non-financial bias, which is often overlooked, how does he fail to see bias in a programme based on data gathered and presented by a group of US tort lawyers, presumably working on a contingency basis for a percentage of any settlement from GSK? But no mention is made of Big Law's box of tricks. He also did not point out one major inaccuracy presented in the programme. The presenter stated that in one study, 11 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) occurred. She went on to say something along the lines of "but look how the company spinned this ... 'only one SAE was related to the study drug'". Joe Collier, or anyone who has been an investigator in a clinical trial, will know that the assignment of relatedness for (serious) adverse events is performed by the clinical investigator, not the sponsor, and in the study in question would have been performed while the investigator was blind to the treatment assignment. Competing interests: Pharmaceutical Physician and Member of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine. I have never worked for GSK nor on any psychiatric medicines for any other company.