how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research - air cleaner filter

Should we have breakfast every day? Should we replace sugar with artificial sweeteners if we have answers to these questions? We can solve some of the biggest public health problems today, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity.
Consumer choices are often guided by suggestions about what we should eat, which also play a role in the food we can eat.
It is recommended to take the form of a dietary guide, a food company health statement and a clinical recommendation.
But there's a problem.
Proposals tend to conflict with each other, and the sources of the proposals are not always transparent.
In September, an Internal Medicine study by the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that in the 1960 s, the sugar industry paid scientists at Harvard University to minimize the link between sugar and heart disease.
The historical paper based on the study shows that the researchers were paid the responsibility to move the heart disease epidemic from sugar to fat.
The authors of this paper believe that many of today's dietary proposals may be largely influenced by the sugar industry.
Since then, some experts have questioned whether this misinformation could lead to today's obesity crisis.
We don't think the industry impact of this size will ever happen again.
We want to have enough systems to be the focus once any potential bias or risk occurs.
But the reason it took so long to expose the sugar industry strategy is that bias can be well hidden.
In order to avoid the potential huge impact, we need a better system in terms of nutrition research.
The government publishes national dietary guidelines to inform people about food choices and the country's food policy.
To be credible, scientific and reasonable, it is clear that it should be based on strict evidence.
Best practices for developing guidelines include starting with a systematic review, a study that identifies all available evidence on specific research issues.
This ensures that research that is beneficial to one side cannot be cherry. picked.
However, the review of the system is only as effective as the study.
An important part of any systematic review is the evaluation of deviations in studies included.
Public healthy eating guidelines and policies are influenced by political, economic and social factors.
This is inevitable.
But if the evidence on which these decisions are based is flawed, the entire basis for systematic review, guidelines and policies will collapse.
Therefore, identify and minimize deviations in each part of the study process-from the researchers in the study to decide which question to answer, for the publication of the results, it is essential to have a strong evidence base.
Study deviation refers to the systematic error of the study or the deviation from the real result or inference.
Funding for research in the pharmaceutical, tobacco or chemical industries has led human research to favor the results of sponsors.
Even if the study uses similar rigorous methods, such as keeping the study information away from participants (blinding)
Or eliminate the selection deviation between the patient group (randomisation)
-Studies sponsored by drug manufacturers are more likely to find that the drug is more effective or less harmful than placebo or other drugs.
This bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, as in sugar-sponsored research, played down the connection between sugar and heart disease while blaming fat.
Financial conflicts of interest between researchers and the industry are also linked to research results that benefit the company to which the researchers belong.
So how does this happen?
The use of funded research is similar to that
Industry-funded research has different results, because bias can be introduced in several ways, such as the research agenda itself, the way research issues are raised, and how research is carried out behind the scenes, and the publication of the research report.
The impact of the industry on other sources of these research biases is often hidden for decades.
It took more than 40 years to show how the tobacco industry is undermining the research agenda on the health impact of secondhand smoke.
It did so through the indoor air Research Center, which funded "distracting" research, which was created and funded by three tobacco companies.
Throughout the 1990 s, the center funded dozens of research projects to suggest the composition of indoor air, such as carpets
Air filters are more harmful than tobacco.
The center did not fund research on secondhand smoke.
Research on the method of deviation that is likely to cause (
Learning how to design
Errors are caused when evaluating the size or direction of the result.
Clinical trials with high risk of methodological bias (
For example, those who lack random or blind)
It is more likely to exaggerate the efficacy of drugs and underestimate the harm of drugs.
Compared to more than 2007 studies, a 500 paper found that the possibility of reporting the negative effects of steroid drugs funded by pharmaceutical companies was half of the former (
Used to treat allergies and asthma)
Than those who have not received funding from pharmaceutical companies. Many industry-
The sponsorship study of drugs is to obtain the approval of the regulatory authorities, and the regulatory authorities need certain methodological standards.
Most of the time, industrial design
The sponsored research is pretty good and there is this bias elsewhere.
It can be the framework of the problem or another common form: publication bias.
Publication bias occurs when the entire study is not published, or only the selected results of the study are published.
This is a common myth publishing bias because scientific journal editors refuse research that does not support assumptions or questions raised by research.
These are called negative or non-statistically significant.
Important research.
But negative research is as likely to be published as positive research.
So that's not the case.
From 1994 to 1998, an analysis of internal pharmaceutical industry documents showed that the pharmaceutical industry had a well-thought-out strategy to ban the release of sponsored research that was detrimental to its products. Industry-
Funded researchers are not allowed to publish negative studies that do not support the effectiveness or safety of the drug being tested.
This contributes to clinical literature focusing on studies that demonstrate drug efficacy or safety.
The tobacco industry also has a history of stopping publishing research it has funded if the results are not biased towards tobacco products.
Bias Research in tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries
Sponsored research is relevant here because the bias affecting the results of the study is the same, regardless of the exposure or intervention being studied.
In nutrition research, we know very little about how corporate sponsorship or conflict of interest affects the research agenda, design, results, and reports.
The credibility of nutrition research has been attacked because funding sources are often opaque and the industry --
Funded research affects food policy.
But we know very little about how sponsorship affects nutrition research.
Our systematic review, published this week in the JAMA Department of Internal Medicine, identified and evaluated all studies that assess the association between food industry sponsorship and nutrition research findings.
We were surprised to find that very few studies investigated the impact of industry sponsorship on the actual numerical results of the study.
Only two of the 12 studies assessed the association between food
The statistical significance of industry sponsorship and research results has not been found.
Only one paper found that the food industry-sponsored research report showed that the harmful effects of drinking soft drinks were much smaller than those without industry-sponsored research.
In general, our comments show that we know little about the association between industry sponsorship or author conflict of interest and the actual results of nutrition research.
More studies assessed the association between industry sponsorship and the author's conclusions or explanations of their findings (Not the result).
Eight reports combined found that industry-sponsored research risks increased by 31% compared to non-reports
Industry-sponsored research leads to conclusions that favor sponsor products.
So we know that food industry sponsorship has something to do with researchers explaining their findings to support the sponsor's products.
The conclusion is not always consistent with the result, but it is possible to make the reader's explanation more favorable by rotation.
For example, a study may find that a specific diet causes weight loss and increased heart disease, but the harmful effects of heart disease are omitted from the conclusion.
Weight loss is only mentioned.
The rotation of this conclusion is a strategy in other industries that can influence the way the study is interpreted.
But the result is (
Research data)
It's really important.
From the perspective of developing systematic reviews and evidence --
Based on the recommendation, the results are more important than the conclusions, since only the data is included in the review, rather than the interpretation of the data by the researchers.
We need to conduct a more rigorous survey of the impact of industry sponsorship on the results of primary nutrition studies and reviews.
For example, our recent study examined 31 reviews of the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight loss.
We found that, compared to other sponsors, reviews funded by artificial sweeteners companies showed that artificial sweeteners were about 17 times more likely to use statistically significant results related to weight loss.
The research we mentioned above did not find any difference in the quality of the industry
Sponsorship and non-
Industry-sponsored nutrition research
However, similar to research sponsored by the pharmaceutical or tobacco industry, sponsors can influence the results by setting a research agenda, asking questions, or influencing publication.
A research agenda focused on a single component (such as sugar)or foods (such as nuts)
Rather than their interaction or eating patterns may be beneficial to food
Industry interests.
This is because it may provide a platform to sell certain foods or processed foods, such as sugar, that contain or lack specific ingredientsfree drinks.
Most of the data sources used to study published bias in other research areas are not available for nutritional research, which makes detection more difficult.
The researchers determined the publication bias of drug and tobacco research by comparing the complete report of drug research submitted to regulatory authorities with publications in scientific literature.
The researchers also compared the data published in the legal settlement with published research articles.
There is no similar regulatory database for food or dietary products.
It is possible to use statistical methods to estimate publication bias in large samples of nutritional studies, as in other research areas.
Interview industry-
Funded researchers may be another way to identify publishing bias.
Another obstacle to a rigorous assessment of nutritional research bias is the lack of transparency in funding sources and conflicts of interest.
We have artificial
The sweetener study found that the authors did not disclose conflicts of interest in the published articles.
In addition, a review of about 1 out of 3 did not disclose their source of funding.
While the disclosure of journals has improved over time, not all journals implement disclosure guidelines for author conflicts of interest and sources of research funding.
Research bias in drug and tobacco industry sponsorship and conflict of interest related research has led to international reform.
These are government requirements for research transparency and data accessibility, stricter Journal and university standards for managing conflicts of interest, and methodological standards for criticizing and reporting evidence (
And conduct system review).
Similar reforms are needed in nutrition research.
Further studies will determine which mechanisms to reduce bias should be urgently implemented in nutrition studies.
Options include mandatory policies to evaluate improved approaches to research used in system reviews to disclose, manage or eliminate financial conflicts of interest in all nutrition areas
Mechanisms for relevant journals and professional associations to reduce publication bias, such as a research registry describing the research methods being undertaken, or providing open access data to revise the research agenda to address neglected topics, and, without the promotion of corporate sponsors, conduct research related to population health at least, industry sources bring their funds together with research funds managed by independent parties.
In the current economic environment, research bias is an important and controversial study in the context of the university's encouragement of industry funding.
Research institutions should implement strategies to reduce the risk of bias when sponsoring research in the industry.
They can do it at risk.
Benefit Evaluation sponsored by research industry.
This will assess the sponsor's control over the design, conduct and publication of the study and any risks to the institution's reputation.
The full impact of industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest on nutrition research remains hidden.
A rigorous and extensive evidence, like the evidence base on bias in pharmaceutical and tobacco research, is needed to shed light on how nutrition research is at risk of bias.
Lisa Belo, professor of lectures at the University of Sydney, the article was originally published in the conversation.
Read the original text.