> Publication bias is a well know issue, resolved for more than a decade.
How is that resolved? This is not what I see in my meta-analyses.
How is that resolved? This is not what I see in my meta-analyses.
Managed entry agreements and conditional reimbursement (dont pay for patients that dont do better than the average of current practice)
Requirements for "real world data" collection and submission post approval.
A whole host of other mechanisms I cant remember off the top of my head.
Also
"evidence based medicine" doesnt mean the evidence is infallible (e.g. rare disease meds have a huge issue with collecting any meaningful data) - it just means actually using evidence rather than just taking the industries and acedemias word for it that it works like the old days.
The whole posit of this article is wrong. "acedemics said so" is not evidence based medicine, it is one small facit of it, and the author matters, no one trusts "sponsored by" papers, NIHR is constantly publishing counter evidence. Some of that even ends up in court (e.g. Avastin)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-novartis-bayer-britain-id...
I was talking specifically in the context of evidence based medicine for regulatory decision making, which is the process that replaced blue envelopes full of money or throwing acedemic papers at an important politician whose relative had the disease that came before it.
In important instances (such as expensive meds going to large numbers of people) the payer will commission their own research e.g. through NIHR https://www.nihr.ac.uk/
There is a whole field of "value of information" now to estimate how incorrect information would affect a decision and whether it warrants research investment (which covers publication bias - e.g. how many unpublished studies showing no or negative effects would there need to be to change the decision)