PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

J C Bailar

Publications and source records attributed to J C Bailar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Randomization in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a review for evidence of subversion.

The authors assess the randomization strategy that had been used in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (NBSS). Document experts at a private investigation and security company were hired to assist in reviewing instances in which names of subjects were altered in the "allocation books" (the basic instrument used to assign, at random, participants to either the mammography or the usual-care arm). The review was restricted to records from 3 NBSS centres where women assigned to the mammography arm had a distinctly higher (not necessarily significant) number of deaths from breast cancer than those assigned to the usual-care arm, and to records from 2 centres where, for limited periods, administrative problems were reported. In most cases the underlying, original name could be identified. The document experts found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the alterations. A search of the NBSS database for the underlying and superimposed names revealed that only 1 of the women whose name had been deleted or superimpsed died of breast cancer. She was in the mammography arm. The authors' thorough review of ways in which the randomization could have been subverted failed to uncover credible evidence of it. They conclude that even if there had been acts of subversion, they could only have been few in number and, given that there was only 1 death from breast cancer in the group reviewed, the alterations could have had only a trivial effect on the study findings as reported in 1992.

Adult

The practice of meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis seems to have a potentially useful role in carefully selected situations where the primary literature is of good quality, heterogeneity in the response to treatment of the tested population is small and well-understood, interest centers on estimation of a specific, critical parameter of outcome, and the meta-analyst is deeply expert in the subject matter. Other uses can produce, and have produced, results that may be seriously misleading. Five short case studies are presented (diethylstilbestrol and outcome of pregnancy, chlorination of drinking water and cancer, cisplatin and cancer of the ovary, antibiotic therapy for otitis media with effusion, and beta-agonists and asthma).

Bias

Qualitative assessment of studies included in a meta-analysis: DES and the risk of pregnancy loss.

Meta-analysis, the qualitative and quantitative integration of available research information, is increasingly used in clinical research. This report examines the qualitative elements of meta-analysis through critical review of two published examples that assessed the effect of diethylstilboestrol (DES) on miscarriage and neonatal mortality, respectively. Our subjective review showed the internal validity of three of five trials aggregated in the former meta-analysis to be severely compromised. The remaining two trials (data from which were aggregated in the latter meta-analysis), while internally valid, studied different clinical populations. Therefore, pooling of their results may have been clinically inappropriate. In conclusion, meta-analysis involves substantial elements of subjective judgment. Qualitative assessment of studies is of pivotal importance, because the validity of any summary estimate of effect hinges on both the methodologic quality and the combinability of the aggregated studies.

Abortion, Spontaneous

Monitoring human tissues for toxic substances: a follow-up to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report.

In 1991, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report, Monitoring Human Tissues for Toxic Substances, which presented a summary of thinking about the banking of human tissue specimens at the time the report was completed. The present article summarizes the findings and recommendations in the NAS report. Events have moved very rapidly since that time, but some history may be helpful in understanding how we have come to where we are today.

Environmental Exposure

Interactions between statisticians and biomedical journal editors.

The increased involvement of statisticians in the publication of biomedical research has resulted in increased communication between statisticians and biomedical journal editors. This paper considers ways to enhance positive interactions between statisticians and journal editors. Specific questions addressed are: What are the most serious statistical problems in manuscripts? What statistical design information should the methods include? How can editors identify papers that need statistical review? How can editors interpret what statistical reviewers say? How can editors identify statisticians who are willing to review manuscripts?

Humans

One-hit models of carcinogenesis: conservative or not?

One-hit formulas are widely believed to be "conservative" when used to analyze carcinogenesis bioassays, in the sense that they will rarely underestimate risks of cancer at low exposures. Such formulas are generally applied to the lifetime incidence of cancer at a specific site, with risks estimated from animal data at zero dose (control), and two or more additional doses that are appreciable fractions of a maximum tolerated dose. No empirical study has demonstrated that the one-hit formula is conservative in the sense described. The Carcinogenesis Bioassay Database System contains data on 1212 separate bioassays of 308 chemical substances tested at exactly three evaluable doses. These provided sufficient data to examine 8432 specific combinations of cancer site with sex, species, and chemical. For each of these we fitted a one-hit formula to the zero and maximum dose data points, then examined the relation of the fitted curve to the incidence rate observed at the mid-dose, with and without adjustment for intercurrent mortality. Both underestimates and overestimates of risk at mid-dose occurred substantially more often than expected by chance. We cannot tell whether such underestimates would occur at lower doses, but offer six biological reasons why underestimates might be expected. In a high percentage of animal bioassays, the one-hit formula is not conservative when applied in the usual way to animal data. It remains possible that the one-hit formula may indeed be conservative at sufficiently low doses (below the observational range), but the usual procedure, applied to the usual dose range, can be nonconservative in estimating the slope of the formula at such low doses. Risk assessments for regulation of carcinogens should incorporate some measure of additional uncertainty.

Animals

Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations.

The 1988 edition of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals includes guidelines for presenting statistical aspects of scientific research. The guidelines are intended to aid authors in reporting the statistical aspects of their work in ways that are clear and helpful to readers. We examine these guidelines for statistics using 15 numbered statements. Although the information presented relates to manuscript preparation, it will also help investigators in earlier stages make critical decisions about research approaches and protocols.

Periodicals as Topic

Have we reduced the risk of getting cancer or of dying from cancer? An update.

We have examined trends in cancer mortality, incidence and survival in the United States to update our earlier work and respond to criticisms. [Bailar, J.C., Smith, E.M.: New Engl. J. Med. 314, 1226 (1986).] Here we concentrate on the years 1975-1984, and show that overall cancer mortality has increased, incidence has increased and case survival is virtually unchanged. This generally unfavorable picture is scarcely changed when lung cancer is excluded from the trends. While trends for individual cancers have been mixed, overall progress in both curative treatment and prevention has been minimal. This evaluation does not deny the marked progress in treating some uncommon forms of cancer, improved palliation, reduced extent or severity of treatment, or benefits of cancer research that can be applied in other areas of medicine. While our finding of limited progress is not new, we believe that it requires increased attention in setting the course of future research initiatives, demonstration programs, medical training and clinical practice.

Humans

Progress against cancer?

We assessed the overall progress against cancer during the years 1950 to 1982. In the United States, these years were associated with increases in the number of deaths from cancer, in the crude cancer-related mortality rate, in the age-adjusted mortality rate, and in both the crude and the age-adjusted incidence rates, whereas reported survival rates (crude and relative) for cancer patients also increased. In our view, the best single measure of progress against cancer is change in the age-adjusted mortality rate associated with all cancers combined in the total population. According to this measure, we are losing the war against cancer, notwithstanding progress against several uncommon forms of the disease, improvements in palliation, and extension of the productive years of life. A shift in research emphasis, from research on treatment to research on prevention, seems necessary if substantial progress against cancer is to be forthcoming.

Age Factors

Science, statistics, and deception.

Some common scientific practices cannot quite be called lying, though they are potentially, and sometimes deliberately, deceptive. Some examples are the failure to explain to readers all the weaknesses in data, statistical testing of post hoc hypotheses, fragmentary or selective reporting of findings, and reporting as "negative" a study that had insufficient chance of detecting an effect. The first step toward controlling potential problems is a redefinition of ethical standards to bar readily avoidable as well as deliberate deception. Other remedies include substantially greater restraint in the use of questionable practices, full disclosure and justification each time these practices are used, and greater skepticism by readers. Pressures to publish tend to promote deception. A broadened concept of ethical standards in science should be reflected in training programs and in the structure of scientific rewards, including a sharply reduced emphasis on publication as an end in itself.

Research Design