A Science Fact Check

Meet the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of scientists who are verifying the latest research in their spare time.

By Sharon Begley | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 7, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Dolmance @ 07/08/2009 6:25:54 AM

    But the Republicans who promote "scientific," theories of Creationism whereby Man and dinosaur lived side by side, that global warming is a liberal myth, that chemicals which food manufacturers shouldn't have to list on their labels are good for you - say that studying what medical treatments are effective is a socialist plan to enslave America.

    And they wonder why so many people think they're crackpots.

    • Posted By: bahanson @ 07/09/2009 6:23:02 AM

      I'm not a Republican, but I am conservative. I applaud this organization and think it does good things. I don't think the government should get involved though, at least not directly, in such research. Without fail such initiatives become tools for agenda pushing by politicians who either appoint like-minded people to them or flat out direct the particpants to reach a desired goal.(Both parties do this) They would also undoubtedly have to set up a board and a beaurocracy, filled with scientists and doctors who would make this a full time job, instead of being out in the real world actually doing things, which I suspect contributes a great deal to this organizations success. It's a good idea, that should stay private.

      • Posted By: Paige2psu @ 07/15/2009 11:36:24 AM

        I am a conservative and a health policy researcher and I am entering the field of comparative effectiveness research. I believe CER holds great promise for advancing the quality of medical care in the U.S. What I am concerned about, as are other conservatives, is the role of the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. If this council serves the same role as the Cochrane Commission, then I will support it. However, I worry that the Council will have the ability to make policy in the form of deciding what treatments will be covered by Medicare and the National Health Insurance Exchange (if created). Research should inform decision making but should not be used to limit care to patients.

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 07/09/2009 9:42:50 AM

      Dolmance. Many conservatives or Republicans are not against science - they are against government regulation on every aspect of our lives. This Cochrane Collaboration is a great research program. Apparently it is misunderstood by many. The medical community needs as much education in common sense approach to treating patients as the rest of us do. There are many ways that we can bring down medical costs and this research is one of them.

  • Posted By: dkcundiff @ 07/14/2009 5:20:40 PM

    As the lead author of a published Cochrane review, the Cochrane outreach coordinator alerted me to Sharon Bigley???s article praising the work of the Cochrane Collaboration. I take issue with her statement, ???And only once since Cochrane was established in 1993 has one of its reviews been overtaken by events.??? My review titled, ???Anticoagulants versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatories or placebo for treatment of venous thromboembolism??? (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003746.html) was corrupted by changes written by the editor and peer-reviewers rather than the authors. In 2007, Medscape General Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, published my commentary titled, ???Evidence-Based Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration on Trial,??? detailing my complaint about this issue: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557263. Cochrane has issued no response to date. From 2007 ??? 2008, I submitted feedback letters to the authors and editors of 57 Cochrane anticoagulation reviews and protocols concerning methodological errors, biases, and financial conflicts of interests. Only 13 replies have been published to date and none of my points has been rebutted. In January 2009, the Medscape Journal of Medicine (new name for Medscape General Medicine) published my, ???Systematic Review of Cochrane Anticoagulation Reviews: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/584084. The review said, ???The 58 Cochrane anticoagulation drug reviews, including mine, contained 9 categories of methodological errors (207 total instances) and 4 types of biases (18 total instances). It concluded, ???The efficacy of anticoagulants for treatment and prophylaxis for 30 current medical indications should be reconsidered by the scientific community and medical regulatory agencies. At least 50,000 people per year worldwide have fatal bleeding due to anticoagulant treatment or prophylaxis for these indications.??? My recently updated research shows that about 100,000 people per year worldwide bleed to death from anticoagulants used for these 30 disputed indications: http://doctormanagedcare.com/ChaptersMDM.pdf pages159 -180.

    To his credit, Dr. David Tovey, the newly appointed Cochrane Editor in Chief worldwide, has been conducting a comprehensive investigation of my challenges to the validity of the findings of these 58 anticoagulation reviews and protocols based on the critiques in my feedback letters. That investigation should result in replies by authors and editors to all my feedback letters and a transparent report to the public by Cochrane of the specific findings regarding each of my challenges. This is a chance for Dr. Tovey to reinforce and maintain the Cochrane Collaboration???s high standing in the area of evidence-based medicine.

  • Posted By: mschaafs @ 07/13/2009 11:35:58 AM

    Thank you for this article Sharon! To respond to the comment below about potential influence of drug company marketing: The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, international network of health care experts and researchers that does not receive any funds from drug companies or any other health-care industry. They do it on minimal public infrastructure support - not for the money, but because they want to find and share the answers to "what works" in health care prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. See www.cochrane.org to find out more. (For transparency, I am a three-year member of The Cochrane Collaboration, at the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre).

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/09/2009 9:11:57 PM

    People take way too much medicine, probably because it is pushed so hard by grossly excessive advertisement urging people to ask their doctor to prescribe something. Doctors are rewarded by drug companies for prescribing them. Think about it.

  • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/08/2009 12:00:17 PM

    The author makes too much sense....especially her conclusion. How can any reasonable person argue with this?

    • Posted By: JustAJoe @ 07/09/2009 1:09:52 PM

      The billions spent on marketing by the drug companies wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?

  • Posted By: JustAJoe @ 07/09/2009 1:07:15 PM

    The bottom line on many such logical improvements in our medical system is the fact that Doctors jealously guard their right to do whatever they want, using whatever they want, on whichever of their patients they want to, regardless of ANY research results. Any attempt to promote a more rational system of medicine has to fight the medical establishment and also the drug companies, who want to preserve their ability to spend money to 'market' to Doctors and patients to increase sales whether or not their drug is as effective as cheaper alternatives.

  • Posted By: isis5632 @ 07/09/2009 10:27:16 AM

    Cochrane reviews are great, the problem is you can't get doctors to cahnge their clinical practice based on them, doctors know what they know and it is very hard to get them to change their ways. Even getting them to particpate in simple measures like checkists for infection control in hosptals is like pulling teeth. At least if this research becaomes tied into their reimbursement it would force them to change the way they practice.

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 07/09/2009 9:27:48 AM

    absolutely, but republicans don't like science.

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 07/09/2009 9:36:51 AM

      That is a ridiculous statement, sieg6529.

  • Posted By: bjsassy @ 07/09/2009 9:28:54 AM

    I completely agree with Sharon Begley on this. It is a common sense approach to healthier living. There is so much talk about the spiraling cost of health care nowadays. People are put on high blood pressure medication as soon as their pressure reaches 140/90. It is easier to write a script than to counsel the patient on diet and exercise. High cholesterol? Write out a prescription for a statin drug. What about those annoying side effects from taking these very drugs? Write out another script to take care of those.

    I am not against drugs, but I believe that many of our medical problems are caused by our lifestyles. Look at how many people are obese today! I have a friend who takes a handful of drugs everyday. If she lost weight, she could throw most of those drugs away. A niece's knees are bad because she is over 200 pounds overweight. She needs to lose weight to have knee replacement surgery, but she appears unable to do so. What is going on with so many Americans? They would rather swallow a pill than live a healthier lifestyle.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse