In the first of the GP Sceptics podcast series, Dr Justin Coleman and Dr Liz Sturgiss team up to dissect, analyse and sometimes trash medical research that is relevant to GPs.
This first podcast looks at the influence of Big Soda on health research. The good, the bad and the fizzy.
Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews. PLOS One, Sept 2016
Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles PLOS Medicine 2007
Big Soda sponsored 96 health groups — a big conflict of interest, study says. Washington Post, Oct 2016
You getting this onto Itunes? I’m lazy and it is easy to use the Podcast app on my iphone
Yes, thanks Thinus. It is on iTunes now, and I have added the link above.
Great podcast. Could I please have the citation for the fluorescent toddlers study?
Preston Family Medical
Sorry Simon. I searched long and hard for it, but I read it back in the pre-internet era and couldn’t find the original reference. I even posted the task on GPDU, and got a few slightly similar references, mainly involving a proprietary product, but not what I was looking for. If any other listener can help, Simon and I would both be grateful.
I think I have a lead, although to an adult study, not toddlers.
The work came out of the Air Hygiene Study in the UK in the 1950’s and early 1960’s.
Interestingly it was led by James Lovelock, who would later become more famous for his Gaia hypothesis of the Earths living nature.
There are articles in the Lancet, however none online easily found as they date from the 1950’s
Lovelock, J.E., Porterfield, J.S., Roden, A.T., Sommerville, T. and Andrewes, C.H. 1952. Further studies on the natural transmission of the common cold. Lancet, 657
There is an article here:
with a picture of the flourescein apparatus on the head of a card playing adult.