Posted on 07/15/2005 6:24:23 AM PDT by new cruelty
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.''
You beat me to it.
This is like: "Everything I say is a lie."
Really?
To change that horrendous statistic, simply ban studies on things that have already been studied.
Back when I was doing research I was astounded by the number of studies where the author stated something like, "I selected this particular set of data because it will tend to prove my hypothesis." That said, the recent JAMA issue overstated the results. There is only one way to the Truth, and that is through larger samples with smaller statistical error.
Now tell me, is the study that determined the accuracy of the other studies subject to the same scrutiny, and if so, is it safe to assume that we have a 2 out of 3 chance of accuracy?
Ah, coffee.
Doctors need to make a buck. So what if they don't work.
From the researchers educated in our schools....
There is a 33.3% chance that this study is wrong?
So there is a 33.3% chance this study is wrong, but if it is wrong, then the theory that 1/3 of all studies is wrong is correct, hence it is not wrong, but there is a chance that it is wrong and......
WHO'S ON FIRST?
"This is like: "Everything I say is a lie."
"Really?"
Yes. But that means I never lie. But then that means I lied about lying.
I meant to add that it looks like the caduceus needs a redesign!
I was gonna ask how we know this study isn't wrong? lol
Because we can't trust most scientists. Mixing science and politics produces lies.
It seems to me that the reason most original clinical research is exaggerated and controversial is because that is the way hacks generate their federal grants.
"Initial study finds that mother's milk is bad for babies, federal funding for further research is needed."
After further research it turns out is not as serious as they had originally thought.
As a physician who has published and reviewed articles and as an expert witness for the defense on numerous occasions, I agree 100% with the artcle. However, the conclusions some may draw are not correct. NEJM, Lancet, JAMA and all of the Medical Journals publish several different types of articles. What should be taken seriously are lengthy review articles, consensus reports etc. Research articles are initial impressions. They may be right or wrong; many factors may influence an article being wrong. That is why I have always been against what I have called the "CNN medical report." Most of you don't remember the first article from the 80s in the NEJM, the title of which was essentially "Blood Does Not Transmit HIV." The authors were wrong, not deliberately. How many times have you heard coffee causes this or that only to have it refuted. Science is not exact and this is why we need to take a deep breath when an article appears which is simply a research paper. Docs have known this for years but the public needs to be aware now.
And better experimental design in the first place.
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.