Why You Can’t Trust Most Studies on Health
- From: pautrey2 <pautrey2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Why You Can’t Trust Most Studies on Health
According to a new analysis, with so many scientific papers and so few
pages available in the most prestigious journals, the “winners” could
be the ones most likely to oversell themselves rather than the best
science. In other words, they are likely to be the ones that trumpet
dramatic or important results -- results that often later turn out to
be false.
Hundreds of thousands of scientific researchers are hired, promoted
and funded according not only to how much work they produce, but also
to where it gets published. Prestigious journals boast that they are
very selective, turning down the vast majority of papers that are
submitted to them. The assumption is that they therefore publish only
the best scientific work.
A study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more
than 1,000 other scientists -- in other words, well-regarded research
-- showed that within only a few years, almost a third of the papers
had been refuted by other studies. And the “hotter” the field, the
greater the competition and the more likely it is that published
research in top journals could be wrong.
There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. A
study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to the
FDA about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those
with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with
negative results were.
Sources:
The Economist October 9, 2008
Public Library of Science October 7, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is the second study by Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at
Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, to show that much scientific
research is highly questionable. Back in 2005 Dr. Ioannidis showed
that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly
chosen scientific paper will be true.
“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more
likely for a research claim to be false than true,” according to the
study.
He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the
main culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor
study design, researcher bias and selective reporting. The new study,
meanwhile, suggests that economic conditions, such as oligopolies,
artificial scarcities and the winner’s curse, are largely to blame for
incorrect research.
The author’s write:
“This essay makes the underlying assumption that scientific
information is an economic commodity, and that scientific journals are
a medium for its dissemination and exchange.
While this exchange system differs from a conventional market in many
senses, including the nature of payments, it shares the goal of
transferring the commodity (knowledge) from its producers (scientists)
to its consumers (other scientists, administrators, physicians,
patients, and funding agencies). The function of this system has major
consequences.
Idealists may be offended that research be compared to widgets, but
realists will acknowledge that journals generate revenue; publications
are critical in drug development and marketing and to attract venture
capital; and publishing defines successful scientific careers.”
Because of the way this system runs, journals may be more likely to
publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or
results from “hot” competitive fields. None of this, of course, has
anything to do with scientific merit or accuracy.
Who Funded the Study
One of the key take homes here is to track down who financed the
study. This can be challenging as many times the drug companies will
fund studies through organizations they own or control but are not
formally associated with.
The reason you want to do this is likely very obvious as it’s well
known that studies funded by industry or conducted by researchers with
industry ties tend to favor corporate interests. For instance, studies
published in psychiatric journals are increasingly funded by drug
companies, and the results of these studies often favor drugs.
When researchers from the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City
examined four journals -- American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of
General Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Journal of
Clinical Psychopharmacology -- they found drugs were favored in
roughly:
• Eight out of 10 studies funded by the company that makes the drug.
• Five out of 10 studies not funded by industry.
• Three out of 10 studies conducted by competitors of the drug's
maker.
So it seems only fair that disclosing these conflicts of interest
would be an effective way to allow readers to judge a study’s true
credibility. Yet, studies published in medical journals, even those
with sterling reputations, are still suspect.
For example, the Associated Press uncovered that three authors of a
study on padded hip protectors, published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), had received research money from
makers of bone-strengthening drugs.
Although JAMA has strict rules about financial disclosure, they
maintained that the authors had done nothing wrong in not disclosing
the ties because the study did not mention bone drugs, nor recommend
them.
What Can You Learn From This?
When evaluating health news, it is wise to be cautious even if it’s
published in a scientific journal. Remain skeptical but open -- even
if it is something I am saying, you simply need to realize YOU are
responsible for your and your family’s health, not me and certainly
not drug companies trying to sell their wares and convince you to take
dangerous strategies like flu shots.
Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do
absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease it would be prudent
to exercise EXTREME caution when evaluating ANY new drug claim, as it
will more than likely be seriously flawed or biased -- and is highly
likely not in your or your family’s best long-term interest to take
the drug.
So be careful out there when the media tells you about the latest and
greatest in health. Carefully check out the source and research
methods for yourself, and determine if it meshes with your own common
sense, experience, and intuition.
Related Articles:
Studies Funded by Drug Companies Favor Drugs 80 Percent of the Time
How Drug Companies Deceive Medical Journals
Medical Research or Drug Company Secrets
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/04/why-you-can-t-trust-most-studies-on-health.aspx
.
- Prev by Date: Safe Harbor - Alternative Mental Health
- Next by Date: Big Pharma May be Handed Blanket Immunity for All Drug Side Effects, Deaths
- Previous by thread: Safe Harbor - Alternative Mental Health
- Next by thread: Big Pharma May be Handed Blanket Immunity for All Drug Side Effects, Deaths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
