Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.

A skeptical look at medical practices
Post Reply
User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5116
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.

Post by Austin Harper » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:23 pm

The New York Times wrote:
When we think of biases in research, the one that most often makes the news is a researcher’s financial conflict of interest. But another bias, one possibly even more pernicious, is how research is published and used in supporting future work.

A recent study in Psychological Medicine examined how four of these types of biases came into play in research on antidepressants. The authors created a data set containing 105 studies of antidepressants that were registered with the Food and Drug Administration. Drug companies are required to register trials before they are done, so the researchers knew they had more complete information than what might appear in the medical literature.

Publication bias refers to the decision on whether to publish results based on the outcomes found. With the 105 studies on antidepressants, half were considered “positive” by the F.D.A., and half were considered “negative.” Ninety-eight percent of the positive trials were published; only 48 percent of the negative ones were.

Outcome reporting bias refers to writing up only the results in a trial that appear positive, while failing to report those that appear negative. In 10 of the 25 negative studies, studies that were considered negative by the F.D.A. were reported as positive by the researchers, by switching a secondary outcome with a primary one, and reporting it as if it were the original intent of the researchers, or just by not reporting negative results.
(read more)
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:30 pm

Research groups should get a "bonus" impact factor on their publication for any replication study they do.
In 10 of the 25 negative studies, studies that were considered negative by the F.D.A. were reported as positive by the researchers, by switching a secondary outcome with a primary one, and reporting it as if it were the original intent of the researchers, or just by not reporting negative results.
I'm perfectly on board with the first it of this, but not the second: any report is better than none, and helps other to hone their experiments and safe time.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31884
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.

Post by Gord » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:11 am

Austin Harper wrote:
The New York Times wrote:...Ninety-eight percent of the positive trials were published; only 48 percent of the negative ones were.

Outcome reporting bias refers to writing up only the results in a trial that appear positive, while failing to report those that appear negative....
What's the name of the bias that led to 2% of the positive trials not being published? :befuddled:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23863
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere.

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:28 pm

The "They'll never believe us if we publish all of 'em." bias?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Post Reply