Deforestation in the Tropics: Reconciling Disparities in Estimates for India

Here we examine recent disparate estimates of deforestation obtained for India. We discuss the sources of disparity and the implications of inaccurate estimates and suggest ways in which future attempts at estimating deforestation might reconcile the disparity. Despite the importance of deforestation and its consequences, no attempt has been made to reconcile the different estimates obtained for India

Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as ‘end users’ of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of ‘mess and noise’ in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of ‘low stakes’ of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of ‘novelty’ bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings

A keen eye for risk

No abstract available

The clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA-funded research: a cohort study

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme funded reports.Study designRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe cohort included 311 NIHR HTA Programme funded reports publishing in HTA in the period 1 January 2007–31 December 2012. The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system independently identified the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA publications and non-NIHR HTA publications. The MORE system involves over 4000 physicians rating publications on a scale of relevance (the extent to which articles are relevant to practice) and a scale of newsworthiness (the extent to which articles contain news or something clinicians are unlikely to know).Main outcome measuresThe proportion of reports published in HTA meeting MORE inclusion criteria and mean average relevance and newsworthiness ratings were calculated and compared with publications from the same studies publishing outside HTA and non-NIHR HTA funded publications.Results286/311 (92.0%) of NIHR HTA reports were assessed by MORE, of which 192 (67.1%) passed MORE criteria. The average clinical relevance rating for NIHR HTA reports was 5.48, statistically higher than the 5.32 rating for non-NIHR HTA publications (mean difference=0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, p=0.01). Average newsworthiness ratings were similar between NIHR HTA reports and non-NIHR HTA publications (4.75 and 4.70, respectively; mean difference=0.05, 95% CI ?0.18 to 0.07, p=0.402). NIHR HTA-funded original research reports were statistically higher for newsworthiness than reviews (5.05 compared with 4.64) (mean difference=0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64, p=0.001).ConclusionsFunding research of clinical relevance is important in maximising the value of research investment. The NIHR HTA Programme is successful in funding projects that generate outputs of clinical relevance

Reforming the cancer drug fund focus on drugs that might be shown to be cost effective

The Cancer Drug Fund was originally conceived as a temporary measure, until value based pricing for drugs was introduced, to give NHS cancer patients access to drugs not approved by NICE. Spending on these drugs rose from less than the £50m (€63m; $79m) budgeted for the first year in 2010-11 to well over £200m in 2013-14, and the budget for the scheme—now extended for a further two years—will reach £280m by 2016.1 The recent changes to the fund recognise the impossibility, within any sensible budget limit, of providing all the new cancer drugs that offer possible benefit to patients. More radical changes are needed to the working of the fund, given the failure to introduce value based pricing, so that it deals with the underlying problem of inadequate information on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new cancer drugs when used in the NHS