Good morning, everyone, and how are you today? We are doing just fine, thank you. Given that this is already the middle of the week and we have survived this far, no reason not to continue, yes? Just consider the alternatives. In fact, this modest accomplishment calls for celebration. So please join us in quaffing a ritual cup of needed stimulation — our choice today is pistachio creme. Or grab a bottle of water, if you prefer. Meanwhile, here are a few items of interest to help you along. Once again, we hope you have a successful day and, of course, keep in touch. We enjoy hearing your tips and tidbits. …
Amid an investigation of alleged research misconduct, Stanford University’s president took responsibility for the decision not to correct or retract a paper at the heart of the controversy and defended his actions, STAT reports. That decision concerned a major study published in the journal Nature in 2009 and co-authored by Marc Tessier-Lavigne, the university’s president and a renowned neuroscientist who at the time was a top researcher at Genentech, a Roche unit. His response came days after Genentech released findings from its investigation of past research co-authored by Tessier-Lavigne.
The results from more than one-third of late-stage clinical trials that tested multiple sclerosis drugs were never published in peer-reviewed journals — and studies with negative or inconclusive findings were more likely to remain unpublished, STAT explains, citing a new analysis. Specifically, the study looked at 150 Phase 3 and Phase 4 trials and found that results for 54 were still unpublished, on average, more than six years after being completed. But a favorable primary outcome and reaching the planned sample size dramatically increased the chances of being published in a medical journal — by 12 and 42 times, respectively.
About the Author Reprints
Create a display name to comment
This name will appear with your comment
