Bacallao GJ

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 32
Paginas: 714-723
Archivo PDF: 130.71 Kb.

FRAGMENTO

La mayor amenaza a la credibilidad y el prestigio de la ciencia moderna es el sesgo. Aunque normalmente -y con sobradas razones- se atribuye el sesgo a causas metodológicas, los componentes ético y axiológico también se hacen presentes en sus orígenes. Resulta hasta cierto punto paradójico que una actividad creativa organizada para el manejo racional del escepticismo, deba sostenerse sobre puntales basados en la confianza. Es por esa razón, que las violaciones a esa confianza con conductas impropias o con el fraude abierto, constituyan una grave amenaza a los fundamentos de la ciencia. Fuchs y Westervelt aportan muy bien logrados argumentos sobre esta cuestión.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Fuchs S, Westervelt SD. Fraud and trust in science. PerspBiolMed.1995; 39: 248-269.

2. Bacallao J. Neutralidad y compromiso: la presencia de la dimensión ética en el trabajo científico. En: Acosta JR (Ed). Bioética para la sustentabilidad. La Habana: Publicaciones Acuario; 2002.

3. Bacallao J. Filosofía de la práctica científica. En: Tealdi, JC (Ed). Diccionario Latinoamericano de Bioética. Bogotá. Colombia: UNESCO; 2008.

4. Schwartz RP. Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. Controlled Clin Trials. 1991; 12: 753-760.

5. Friedlander MW. At the Fringes of Science. Boulder: Westview Press; 1995.

6. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000; 29: 722-729.

7. Hammer SM, Squires KE, Hughes MD, Grimes JM, et al. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with HIV infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team. New Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 725-733.

8. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Lederberger B, Tilling C, et al. Long term effectiveness of potent antiretroviral therapy in preventing AIDS and death: A prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2005; 366: 378-384.

9. Sato T, Matsuyama Y. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology. 2003; 14: 680-686.

10. Robins JM. Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference. In: Halloran E, Berry D. (Eds). Statistical Models in Epidemiology: The Environment and Clinical Trials. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999, p.95-134.

11. Robins JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998; 17: 269-302.

12. McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. J Royal Stat Soc B. 1980; 42: 109-142.

13. Vandenbroucke JP. Observational Research, Randomised Trials, and Two Views of Medical Science. PLoS Med 2008; 5(3): e67.

14. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: Importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005; 365: 176-186.

15. Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Dangers of using optimal cut-points in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Nat Inst Cancer. 1994; 86: 829-835.

16. Julious SA, George S, Machin D, Stephens RJ. Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients. Quality of Life Research. 1997; 6: 109-117.

17. Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG. Estimating sample sizes for binaru, ordered categorical and continuous outcomes in 2 groups comparisons. British Med Journal. 1995; 311: 1145-1148.

18. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Med Journal. 1995; 310: 452-454.

19. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New Eng J of Med. 1988; 318: 1728-1733.

20. Grieve AP. The number needed to treat: a useful clinical measure or a case of the Emperor´s new clothes? Pharmac Stat. 2003; 2: 87-102.

21. Hutton JL. Numbers needed to treat: properties and problems (with comments). J Royal Stat Society A. 2000; 163: 403-419.

22. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses-sometimes informative, usually misleading. British Med Journal. 1999; 318: 1548-1551.

23. Julious SA. Issues with number needed to treat. Stat in Med 2005; 24: 3233-3235.

24. Wynder EL, Higgins IT, Harris RE. The wish bias. J ClinEpidemiol. 1990;43:619-621.

25. Vandenbroucke JP. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge. The Lancet. 1998; 352: 2001-2006.

26. Kaptchuk TJ. Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ. 2003; 28;326:1453-1455.

27. Baron R, Likar R, Martín-Mola E, et al. Effectiveness of Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) compared with Oxycodone / Naloxone PR for the management of severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component: A randomized, controlled, open-label, Phase 3b/4 study. Pain Practice. 2015.

28. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000; 283: 2701-2711.

29. Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002; 288: 358-362.

30. Bacchetti P, Wolf LE, Segal MR, et al. Ethics and sample size. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161: 105-110.

31. Bacallao J. Bases éticas de algunas dicotomías en el contexto de los ensayos clínicos. En: Acosta JR. (Ed). Bioética desde una perspectiva cubana. La Habana: Centro Félix Varela; 1997, p. 89-91.

32. Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration—Looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 2734-2736.