Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs
Importance Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile. Objective We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for antic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2853-2857 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2857 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 2853 |
container_title | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Wayant, Cole Aran, Greg Johnson, Bradley S. Vassar, Matt |
description | Importance
Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.
Objective
We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for anticancer medications. We also quantified the number of advertisements that did not include or cite any studies with mature overall survival (OS) data (i.e., data with all required patient events for final analysis).
Design/Setting/Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of advertisements uploaded to the AdPharm Database (repository of pharmaceutical advertisements); the clinical trials supporting the ads; and the trial registrations associated with the trials. Data were extracted by two investigators who were blinded to each other’s data.
Main outcome measures
The first co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between trial registrations and published trials. The second co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between the same published trials and drug advertisements.
Results
We included 74 advertisements and 48 clinical trials. Print ads were the most common (
n
= 66), and most print advertisements were targeted to health care providers (
n
= 55, 83.3%). Overall, 41/48 (85.4%) trials were registered prior to study enrollment, and 41/48 (85.4%) did not deviate from the registered primary endpoints. Across all advertisements (
n
= 74), statistically significant endpoints were more often reported (unadjusted risk ratio [uRR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.14–1.40)) and 22/55 (40.0%) advertisements cited trials with immature overall survival data (i.e., data without the required number of events for final analysis).
Conclusions
In our sample, statistically significant endpoints were more commonly reported than nonsignificant endpoints. Immature endpoints (those analyzed before the required number of accrued patient events) were often reported. By reporting only significant endpoints and those that are immature, advertisers may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7572986</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2550565427</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1491c52454fd0ee050d916c0d7c2fbe463054aeb7bc0a25f653f7c084947b8003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhSMEotPCH2CBLLFhE7h2_JoNUinDQ6o0CMrachw7uErswU4izYbfXk-nlMeClS3f7xzfo1NVzzC8wgDidcaYA6-BQA0ciKzxg2qFGWE1pmvxsFqBlLSWoqEn1WnO1wC4IUQ-rk4awjleN3hV_dwsepj15GNA0aGvdrBm8otF23kycbToi93FNPnQo7deZ-QD2jjnjTZ7tAndLvow3b5-TuWGdOjQVfFYfD44nneLLeJsR3vAXExoG0wcYr9H79Lc5yfVI6eHbJ_enWfVt_ebq4uP9eX2w6eL88vaUEGnQx5sGKGMug6sBQbdGnMDnTDEtZbyBhjVthWtAU2Y46xxwoCkaypaCdCcVW-Ovru5HW1nyjpJD2qX_KjTXkXt1d-T4L-rPi5KMEHWkheDl3cGKf6YbZ7U6LOxw6CDjXNWhJJGAuZUFvTFP-h1nFMo8RRhDBhnlIhCkSNlUsw5WXe_DAZ1qFcd61WlXnVbr8JF9PzPGPeSX30WoDkCuYxCb9Pvv_9jewM42rIO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2550565427</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wayant, Cole ; Aran, Greg ; Johnson, Bradley S. ; Vassar, Matt</creator><creatorcontrib>Wayant, Cole ; Aran, Greg ; Johnson, Bradley S. ; Vassar, Matt</creatorcontrib><description>Importance
Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.
Objective
We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for anticancer medications. We also quantified the number of advertisements that did not include or cite any studies with mature overall survival (OS) data (i.e., data with all required patient events for final analysis).
Design/Setting/Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of advertisements uploaded to the AdPharm Database (repository of pharmaceutical advertisements); the clinical trials supporting the ads; and the trial registrations associated with the trials. Data were extracted by two investigators who were blinded to each other’s data.
Main outcome measures
The first co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between trial registrations and published trials. The second co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between the same published trials and drug advertisements.
Results
We included 74 advertisements and 48 clinical trials. Print ads were the most common (
n
= 66), and most print advertisements were targeted to health care providers (
n
= 55, 83.3%). Overall, 41/48 (85.4%) trials were registered prior to study enrollment, and 41/48 (85.4%) did not deviate from the registered primary endpoints. Across all advertisements (
n
= 74), statistically significant endpoints were more often reported (unadjusted risk ratio [uRR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.14–1.40)) and 22/55 (40.0%) advertisements cited trials with immature overall survival data (i.e., data without the required number of events for final analysis).
Conclusions
In our sample, statistically significant endpoints were more commonly reported than nonsignificant endpoints. Immature endpoints (those analyzed before the required number of accrued patient events) were often reported. By reporting only significant endpoints and those that are immature, advertisers may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32661931</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Advertising ; Bias ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neoplasms ; Oncology ; Original Research ; Patients ; Pharmaceutical Preparations ; Statistical analysis ; Survival ; Television</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2853-2857</ispartof><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2020</rights><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1491c52454fd0ee050d916c0d7c2fbe463054aeb7bc0a25f653f7c084947b8003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1491c52454fd0ee050d916c0d7c2fbe463054aeb7bc0a25f653f7c084947b8003</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8829-8179</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572986/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572986/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32661931$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wayant, Cole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aran, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Bradley S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vassar, Matt</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J GEN INTERN MED</addtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>Importance
Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.
Objective
We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for anticancer medications. We also quantified the number of advertisements that did not include or cite any studies with mature overall survival (OS) data (i.e., data with all required patient events for final analysis).
Design/Setting/Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of advertisements uploaded to the AdPharm Database (repository of pharmaceutical advertisements); the clinical trials supporting the ads; and the trial registrations associated with the trials. Data were extracted by two investigators who were blinded to each other’s data.
Main outcome measures
The first co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between trial registrations and published trials. The second co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between the same published trials and drug advertisements.
Results
We included 74 advertisements and 48 clinical trials. Print ads were the most common (
n
= 66), and most print advertisements were targeted to health care providers (
n
= 55, 83.3%). Overall, 41/48 (85.4%) trials were registered prior to study enrollment, and 41/48 (85.4%) did not deviate from the registered primary endpoints. Across all advertisements (
n
= 74), statistically significant endpoints were more often reported (unadjusted risk ratio [uRR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.14–1.40)) and 22/55 (40.0%) advertisements cited trials with immature overall survival data (i.e., data without the required number of events for final analysis).
Conclusions
In our sample, statistically significant endpoints were more commonly reported than nonsignificant endpoints. Immature endpoints (those analyzed before the required number of accrued patient events) were often reported. By reporting only significant endpoints and those that are immature, advertisers may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.</description><subject>Advertising</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neoplasms</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Preparations</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Television</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhSMEotPCH2CBLLFhE7h2_JoNUinDQ6o0CMrachw7uErswU4izYbfXk-nlMeClS3f7xzfo1NVzzC8wgDidcaYA6-BQA0ciKzxg2qFGWE1pmvxsFqBlLSWoqEn1WnO1wC4IUQ-rk4awjleN3hV_dwsepj15GNA0aGvdrBm8otF23kycbToi93FNPnQo7deZ-QD2jjnjTZ7tAndLvow3b5-TuWGdOjQVfFYfD44nneLLeJsR3vAXExoG0wcYr9H79Lc5yfVI6eHbJ_enWfVt_ebq4uP9eX2w6eL88vaUEGnQx5sGKGMug6sBQbdGnMDnTDEtZbyBhjVthWtAU2Y46xxwoCkaypaCdCcVW-Ovru5HW1nyjpJD2qX_KjTXkXt1d-T4L-rPi5KMEHWkheDl3cGKf6YbZ7U6LOxw6CDjXNWhJJGAuZUFvTFP-h1nFMo8RRhDBhnlIhCkSNlUsw5WXe_DAZ1qFcd61WlXnVbr8JF9PzPGPeSX30WoDkCuYxCb9Pvv_9jewM42rIO</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Wayant, Cole</creator><creator>Aran, Greg</creator><creator>Johnson, Bradley S.</creator><creator>Vassar, Matt</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-8179</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs</title><author>Wayant, Cole ; Aran, Greg ; Johnson, Bradley S. ; Vassar, Matt</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-1491c52454fd0ee050d916c0d7c2fbe463054aeb7bc0a25f653f7c084947b8003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Advertising</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neoplasms</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Preparations</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Television</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wayant, Cole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aran, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Bradley S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vassar, Matt</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wayant, Cole</au><au>Aran, Greg</au><au>Johnson, Bradley S.</au><au>Vassar, Matt</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><stitle>J GEN INTERN MED</stitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2853</spage><epage>2857</epage><pages>2853-2857</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>Importance
Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.
Objective
We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for anticancer medications. We also quantified the number of advertisements that did not include or cite any studies with mature overall survival (OS) data (i.e., data with all required patient events for final analysis).
Design/Setting/Participants
We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of advertisements uploaded to the AdPharm Database (repository of pharmaceutical advertisements); the clinical trials supporting the ads; and the trial registrations associated with the trials. Data were extracted by two investigators who were blinded to each other’s data.
Main outcome measures
The first co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between trial registrations and published trials. The second co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between the same published trials and drug advertisements.
Results
We included 74 advertisements and 48 clinical trials. Print ads were the most common (
n
= 66), and most print advertisements were targeted to health care providers (
n
= 55, 83.3%). Overall, 41/48 (85.4%) trials were registered prior to study enrollment, and 41/48 (85.4%) did not deviate from the registered primary endpoints. Across all advertisements (
n
= 74), statistically significant endpoints were more often reported (unadjusted risk ratio [uRR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.14–1.40)) and 22/55 (40.0%) advertisements cited trials with immature overall survival data (i.e., data without the required number of events for final analysis).
Conclusions
In our sample, statistically significant endpoints were more commonly reported than nonsignificant endpoints. Immature endpoints (those analyzed before the required number of accrued patient events) were often reported. By reporting only significant endpoints and those that are immature, advertisers may encourage misconceptions about a drug’s efficacy profile.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>32661931</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-8179</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0884-8734 |
ispartof | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2853-2857 |
issn | 0884-8734 1525-1497 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7572986 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Advertising Bias Clinical trials Confidence intervals Cross-Sectional Studies Humans Internal Medicine Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neoplasms Oncology Original Research Patients Pharmaceutical Preparations Statistical analysis Survival Television |
title | Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T10%3A34%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Selective%20Outcome%20Reporting%20Bias%20in%20Efficacy%20Endpoints%20in%20Print%20and%20Television%20Advertisements%20for%20Oncology%20Drugs&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Wayant,%20Cole&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2853&rft.epage=2857&rft.pages=2853-2857&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2550565427%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2550565427&rft_id=info:pmid/32661931&rfr_iscdi=true |