La littérature sur les spin permet de mieux analyser ce phénomène probablement ancien. Les spin consistent en petits arrangements pour rendre des résultats d'études plus attirants ! Il s'agit de présenter des résultats d'études de manière à ce qu'ils apparaissent un peu plus beaux qu'en réalité… Ce n'est pas très bien ! Mais c'est humain, me direz-vous ! Deux études intéressantes de l'équipe du centre Cochrane français :
- "Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIN randomized controlled trial " publié dans Journal of Clinical Oncology en décembre 2014 : les spin ont un impact sur les interprétations des cliniciens !
- "Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention" publié dans BMC Medical Research en octobre 2015 : cette étude montre la fréquence énorme des spin des études non randomisées "To our knowledge, this is the first study to develop and use a classification of spin for non-randomized studies. Of the 128 reports we evaluated, 84 % of abstracts contained at least one type of spin and 48 % featured a high level of spin. Use of causal language was the most frequent spin strategy. Yet, the use of causal claims is misleading in the interpretation of non-randomized studies because these designs are unable to control for every confounding factor." Les auteurs proposent une classification très intéressante des spin avec des exemples, dans le tableau 2 : les rapports trompeurs, les interprétations trompeuses et les extrapolations inadéquates des résultats. Il y a plein de sous-classes, à voir !
Un commentaire
Bonjour,
je revisite votre blog alors-même que j’interrogeais rapidement la toile au sujet d’une vieille affaire. Mon commentaire ne touchera pas exactement au fond de votre billet, sans toutefois – c’est mon opinion- en être très éloigné. De surcroît, le site d’où j’extrais l’information est assurément un site militant que l’on ne s’attend pas à voir figurer sur ce blog. J’espère que vous m’en excuserez. Cette vieille affaire ? MMR !
« Lewis notes that Godlee had been extremely officious in shortening, rewording and completely disallowing his letters intended for publication in the BMJ. At one point she’d even written a quote she attributed to Lewis: “I am not qualified in medicine or histopathology.” And because their contents were akin to what one would expect from a medical writer, not a media writer, he wonders if, in fact, it was someone other than Deer who actually wrote the BMJ articles attributed to him – was Godlee a ghostwriter for Deer?
Godlee’s alleged forged quote would be laughable if it weren’t so shockingly unethical. Dr Lewis is a former senior-level research microbiologist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whose many accomplishments in medical and environmental research have been widely covered in professional, scientific and popular publications and broadcasts including the journals, Nature, Science, Lancet, and JAMA. He lost his job at the EPA in 2003 after his research forced the EPA to abandon its policy of promoting application of sewage sludge to farm land. Now, he states, “I live almost entirely on my federal retirement pension. For the last couple of decades, I have derived additional income as an expert witness in federal and state court cases involving the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples. This is an area in which I have extensive professional credentials.” In a 2011 BMJ article, Deer described Lewis as a “self employed American microbiologist working with Wakefield.” To prevent him from uploading his extensive evidence re the Wakefield case to the NWC’s website, Brian Deer sent them this misinformation and more about Dr Lewis’ credentials.
Dr Lewis was not “working with Wakefield”. Rather, he initiated contact with Wakefield in his capacity as Director of the Research Misconduct Project. He states, “Since January 2011, I have worked full-time investigating Dr. Wakefield’s records on a volunteer basis, with no pay….He did not solicit my help. I requested copies of his court pleadings and other documents; he did not approach me and offer up any of his documents.” »
http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/bmj-on-the-hot-seat/