Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Leerseite zum Erstellen von Text

Bitte oben rechts aus "Bearbeiten" klicken - nur sichtbar wenn eingeloggt

 

 

Eine der wichtigsten Referenz-Institutionen für "Evidenz" in der konventionellen Medizin ist die Cochrane-Collaboration. Eine Studie gilt als glaubwürdig, wenn sie einen positiven Cochrane review erhalten hat.
Neuerdings wird die Objektivität und Vertrauenswürdigkeit dieser Instanz von kompetenter Stelle in Frage gestellt: Peter C Gøtzsche  Professor, Director des Nordic Cochrane Centre, MD, DrMedSci, MSc teilt in einem Brief vom 14.9.2018 mit, daß er aufgrund eines Minderheitsvotums aus dem Governing Board der Cochrane Collaboration entlassen worden sei, da er den Ruf der Organisation schädige. Daraufhin haben direkt 4 weitere führende Cochrane Führung-Mitglieder ihr Amt niedergelegt, so daß das Governing Board innerhalb eines Tages von 13 auf 8 Mitglieder geschrumpft ist.

Gøtzsche stellt in seinem Schreiben folgendes fest: "This growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model that have been manifested within the Cochrane leadership over the past few years threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization. ... There is stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests. ... There has also been great resistance and stalling on the part of the central executive team to improving Cochrane´s conflict of interest policy. A year ago, I proposed that there should be no authors of Cochrane reviews to have financial conflicts of interests with companies related to the products considered in the reviews. This proposal was supported by other members of the Board, but the proposal has not progressed at all.  ....
Our work informs government legislation globally, it influences medical guidelines and drug approval agencies. Therefore, the integrity of the Cochrane Collaboration is paramount. We pride ourselves on being global providers of “trusted evidence” on a foundation of values such as openness, transparency and collaboration. However, in recent years Cochrane has significantly shifted more to a business - a profit-driven approach. Even though it is a not-for-profit charity, our “brand” and “product” strategies are taking priority over getting out independent, ethical and socially responsible scientific results. Despite our clear policies to the contrary, my centre, and others, have been confronted with attempts at scientific censorship, rather than the promotion of pluralistic, open scientific debate about the merits of concrete Cochrane reviews of the benefits and harms of health care interventions. ...
As most people know, much of my work is not very favourable to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Because of this Cochrane has faced pressure, criticism and complaints. My expulsion is one of the results of these campaigns.  
What is at stake is the ability of producing credible and trustworthy medical evidence that our society values and needs."