Study Finds One-third of Medical Studies are Wrong

Professur

Well-Known Member
Study Finds One-third of Medical Studies are Wrong
By Lindsey Tanner
Assocaited Press
posted: 14 July 2005
10:16 am ET



CHICAGO (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.

That means nearly one-third of the original results did not hold up, according to the report in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Contradicted and potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon in the most visible and most influential original clinical research,'' said study author Dr. John Ioannidis, a researcher at the University of Ioannina in Greece.

Ioannidis examined research in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Lancet -- prominent journals whose weekly studies help feed a growing public appetite for medical news.

Experts say the report is a reminder to doctors and patients that they should not put too much stock in a single study and understand that treatments often become obsolete with medical advances.

"The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white,'' said Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor-in-chief.

Editors at the New England Journal of Medicine added in a statement: "A single study is not the final word, and that is an important message.''

The refuted studies dealt with a wide range of drugs and treatments. Hormone pills were once thought to protect menopausal women from heart disease but later were shown to do the opposite, and Vitamin E pills have not been shown to prevent heart attacks, contrary to initial results.

Contradictions also included a study that found nitric oxide does not improve survival in patients with respiratory failure, despite earlier claims. And a study suggested an antibody treatment did not improve survival in certain sepsis patients; a smaller previous study found the opposite.

Ioannidis acknowledged an important but not very reassuring caveat: "There's no proof that the subsequent studies ... were necessarily correct.'' But he noted that in all 14 cases in which results were contradicted or softened, the subsequent studies were either larger or better designed. Also, none of the contradicted treatments is currently recommended by medical guidelines.

Not by accident, this week's JAMA also includes a study contradicting previous thinking that stomach-lying helped improve breathing in children hospitalized with acute lung injuries. The new study found they did no better than patients lying on their backs.

DeAngelis said she included the study with Ioannidis' report to highlight the issue. She said the media can complicate matters with misleading or exaggerated headlines about studies.

Ioannidis said scientists and editors should avoid "giving selective attention only to the most promising or exciting results'' and should make the public more aware of the limitations of science.

"The general public should not panic'' about refuted studies, he said. "We all need to start thinking more critically.''

Source

But, but .... what if this study is one of the third that's wrong?

quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
At least a study that is worth reading (and I didn't even read it completely), too much crap being published on the media.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
"The crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is you almost never have something that's black and white,''
DeAngelis said she included the study with Ioannidis' report to highlight the issue. She said the media can complicate matters with misleading or exaggerated headlines about studies.
The same can be said about theorums from physics, chemistry, biology, botany, astronomy etc etc... that's science for you. :shrug:
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
MrBishop said:
The same can be said about theorums from physics, chemistry, biology, botany, astronomy etc etc... that's science for you. :shrug:

Those are called laws at most, theorems are irrefutable truths ;)

hehehe
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
MrBishop said:
I'm glad they don't stop trying. Eventually, all that trial and error will get us a cure for cancer.

Maybe. In the meantime, they'll busy themselves trying to disprove God's existence. And too many people will fall for it.

Temporarily, that is...
 

HomeLAN

New Member
SouthernN'Proud said:
Maybe. In the meantime, they'll busy themselves trying to disprove God's existence. And too many people will fall for it.

Temporarily, that is...

Well, shoot, we should just stop trying. If'n God wants you to survive cancer, he'll make you do it, and if'n he doesn't, well, it's just your time.

Pardon me, but as someone who's lost loved ones to cancer, that's a crock of doo-doo. Given your own experiences, I'm doubly surprised.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Proving or disproving a deity's existence is problematic at best and really has very little (if anything) to do with science.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
chcr said:
Proving or disproving a deity's existence is problematic at best and really has very little (if anything) to do with science.

And oddly enough, that seems to be true for most studies too. But I think I know why. They must be using that new method of information gathering that MrBishop favours. Y'know, the one where three questions let's you know everything .... even though there were four topics of discussion.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
chcr said:
Proving or disproving a deity's existence is problematic at best and really has very little (if anything) to do with science.


Then why do so many scientists persist in engaging in it? Also, why do so many laymen use the broad brush of "science" as verification of their beliefs or lack thereof? I wasn't the person who linked the two disciplines.

And HomeLan, I think you misunderstood the context of my post. I am forever grateful for the advances in that and other fields. My comments were directed toward the portion I quoted, nothing more.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
If the existence of God was proven
and it was proven that he wanted
all the stuff from us that the bible sez...

Then He'd really be suspect in my book.

What kinda all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being,
would give a rats ass about what we do?
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Winky said:
If the existence of God was proven
and it was proven that he wanted
all the stuff from us that the bible sez...

Then He'd really be suspect in my book.

What kinda all powerful, all knowing, all seeing being,
would give a rats ass about what we do?

My Word. Winky, that's possibly the first sane question I've seen from you. And actually a very good question. Would you really like to know the answer? I know what it is.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
SouthernN'Proud said:
Then why do so many scientists persist in engaging in it?

Name 5. Not 5 who are atheist, but five scientists who actively spend time trying to disprove the existence of god.

Personally, I belive that the existence of a deity is simply a continuation of mythology. "One man's myth is another man's religion." I don't accept any of them. I don't believe in magic, ghosts or astrology either.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Funny. I don't believe in astrology or magic either. 'Fraid yer wrong about the ghosts, tho. 4 generations of my family have been 'watched over'.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
I was, the first time I noticed it. And the second. And every other time since. It's not the sort of thing you ever get used to.
 
Top