Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Animal studies produce many false positives (An explanation of why that's so.)
Nature News ^ | 16 July 2013 | Heidi Ledford

Posted on 07/16/2013 10:04:09 PM PDT by neverdem

Examination of neurological disease research shows pervasive ‘significance bias’.

A statistical analysis of more than 4,000 data sets from animal studies of neurological diseases has found that almost 40% of studies reported statistically significant results — nearly twice as many as would be expected on the basis of the number of animal subjects. The results suggest that the published work — some of which was used to justify human clinical trials — is biased towards reporting positive results.

This bias could partly explain why a therapy that does well in preclinical studies so rarely predicts success in human patients, says John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology at Stanford University in California, and who is a co-author on the study published today in PLoS Biology1. “The results are too good to be true,” he says.

Ioannidis’s team is not the first to find fault with animal studies: others have highlighted how small sample sizes and unblinded studies can skew results. Another key factor is the tendency of researchers to publish only positive results, leaving negative findings buried in lab notebooks. Creative analyses are also likely culprits, says Ioannidis, such as selecting the statistical technique that gives the best result.

These problems that can affect patient care in hospitals, cautions Matthias Briel, an epidemiologist at University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland. Preclinical studies influence clinical guidelines when human data are lacking, he says. “A lot of clinical researchers are not aware that animal studies are not as well planned as clinical trials,” he adds.

Significantly skewed

Ioannidis and his colleagues mined a database of meta-analyses — analyses of data from multiple studies — of neurological disease research on animals. They focused on 160 meta-analyses of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and spinal-cord injury, among others...

(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Testing
KEYWORDS: animalstudies; reportingbias; significance; statistics

1 posted on 07/16/2013 10:04:09 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Not surprised. The economy is recovering, too.


2 posted on 07/16/2013 10:30:01 PM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I was just going to pull up Ioannidas’ bio but saw he was quoted. Brilliant man indeed


3 posted on 07/16/2013 11:04:37 PM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson