Studies, schmudies: one third of study results don't hold up
July 13, 2005
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- New research highlights a
frustrating fact about science: What was good for you
yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great
tomorrow.
The sobering conclusion came in a review of major
studies published in three influential medical journals
between 1990 and 2003, including 45 highly publicized
studies that initially claimed a drug or other
treatment worked.
Subsequent research contradicted results of seven
studies -- 16 percent -- and reported weaker results
for seven others, an additional 16 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/13/contradictory.studies.ap/
Even research in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the AMA, and Lancet -- the prestigious journals reviewed in this research -- were prone to error about one third of the time.
Why? Because scientists fudge data inadvertently, and sometimes purposely. And because the results of a study are closely related to who pays for the study. Scientists may release only the studies that provide results favorable to their interests, while a study with contrary results may be shelved.
Medical breakthroughs reported in the mainstream media may or may not be real breakthroughs. Keep a realistic attitude when you read medical news. It ain't necessarily so.
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- New research highlights a
frustrating fact about science: What was good for you
yesterday frequently will turn out to be not so great
tomorrow.
The sobering conclusion came in a review of major
studies published in three influential medical journals
between 1990 and 2003, including 45 highly publicized
studies that initially claimed a drug or other
treatment worked.
Subsequent research contradicted results of seven
studies -- 16 percent -- and reported weaker results
for seven others, an additional 16 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/13/contradictory.studies.ap/
Even research in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the AMA, and Lancet -- the prestigious journals reviewed in this research -- were prone to error about one third of the time.
Why? Because scientists fudge data inadvertently, and sometimes purposely. And because the results of a study are closely related to who pays for the study. Scientists may release only the studies that provide results favorable to their interests, while a study with contrary results may be shelved.
Medical breakthroughs reported in the mainstream media may or may not be real breakthroughs. Keep a realistic attitude when you read medical news. It ain't necessarily so.
posted by thevitaminkid | 9:39 AM
|
0 comments
