|
| |||
|
|
||
|
|||
|
|
Research Information: The Straight PoopBy Anthony Rosner, PhD, LLD [Hon.], LLC In the hours and days following the 136th running of the Belmont Stakes on June 5, I was informed that the neighborhood around the racetrack in Elmont, New York, was not a pleasant place to be. The prohibitive favorite, Smarty Jones, who had departed the starting gate at 2-5 odds, had just been whipped by a 15-1 nag - a relative long shot in the racing business. Thus, we're reminded of that classic axiom of railbirds and other racing aficionados: There is no such phenomenon as a sure thing.And so it is with research, chiropractic or otherwise. A quotation I read at a recently dedicated art museum in Vienna sums it up perfectly: "Proof of the existence of information does, in fact, not exist in actuality, but is based on probability."1 This is by no means to discredit or discount the value of research. Indeed, I have recently outlined, in some detail, the accomplishments and importance of research as it pertains to the practitioner.2 But as I have done so many times before, I need to comment upon how research needs to be monitored and interpreted judiciously to avoid the plight of Rick, who, in the movie "Casablanca" informed the authorities as to why he had incredulously chosen to come take the waters at a locale in the middle of the desert: "I was misinformed." A recent clinical investigation that gives us pause recently appeared in JAMA, featuring an author (Gotzsche) who has long been a compelling critic of the foibles of clinical research undermining its validity.3,4 This most provocative study compared what is published in clinical studies with what the authors originally submitted for ethical approval, so that the research could be carried out in the first place. The disparities between the original designs and what appeared in the end could only be described as unnerving:
What this study is telling us is that such outcome reporting bias increased the prevalence of spurious results. In other words, improperly executed and poorly monitored research creates the real possibility of spreading misinformation. In even blunter terms, the unfortunate reader of many of these studies would have been hoodwinked, had Gotzsche and his co-workers not come to the rescue. To rectify this disturbing scenario, journal editors and reviewers need to demand from the authors the original protocols, together with the manuscripts submitted for publication. The authors also need to be more forthright in reporting any deviations from the outcomes listed from the original trial protocols.5 In terms of potential abuses and abuses of clinical research in general, I have published a more comprehensive assessment elsewhere.6 If clinical research is to be conducted properly, without these hobgoblins, where does FCER fit in? Simply through its ongoing sponsorship of thoroughly peer-reviewed research, an example of which (tension headache study) was rated among the highest in quality by four independently conducted published systematic literature reviews.7-10 Also through its vigorous interpretations and rebuttals of spurious conclusions found in the scientific literature over the past decade,11-17 more recently pertaining to cost-effectiveness misinterpretations in the literature,18,19 FCER has taken a highly proactive position in enabling the chiropractic physician to interpret and articulate the current literature to both patients and prospective payors alike. Such is to simply state that FCER remains a primary source of reference and interpretive material pertaining to chiropractic research. References
Anthony L. Rosner, PhD, Director of Research and Education, Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research Click here for more information about Anthony Rosner, PhD, LLD [Hon.], LLC.
|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
