Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

It’s magic! Registered clinical trials vanish positive findings

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Nature:

A 1997 US law mandated the registry’s creation, requiring researchers from 2000 to record their trial methods and outcome measures before collecting data. The study found that in a sample of 55 large trials testing heart-disease treatments, 57% of those published before 2000 reported positive effects from the treatments. But that figure plunged to just 8% in studies that were conducted after 2000. Study author Veronica Irvin, a health scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, says this suggests that registering clinical studies is leading to more rigorous research. Writing on his NeuroLogica Blog, neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, called the study “encouraging” but also “a bit frightening” because it casts doubt on previous positive results.

Agreed. Yikes! People’s lives might be at stake.

Irvin says that by having to state their methods and measurements before starting their trial, researchers cannot then cherry-pick data to find an effect once the study is over. “It’s more difficult for investigators to selectively report some outcomes and exclude others,” she says.

Now, there’s a cherry tree that should enter eternity as a  fine rolltop desk.

See also: Retraction Watch for regular updates on these problems

and

If peer review is working, why all the retractions?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I hope you didn't misunderstand me, Denyse. I meant I wouldn't have wanted any credit for just finding it, not that I was intending to demean it. Not that it proved up to much in the event.Axel
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PST
This article may interest you folk. Perhaps you think it worth your basing a thread on it, Denyse. Please, no attribution though. I have a vestige of pride left...! http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21591549-and-nature-and-cell-nobel-prize-winner-attacks-elite-journals-whats-wrongAxel
August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PST
Let's hear it for peer-review.PaV
August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST
Wait, Steven Novella called the study encouraging but frightening? What was encouraging about it? And why should this come as a surprise to Novella, I thought he was supposed to be skeptical about things? Oh wait, he is a "skeptic", I forgot that means he accepts whatever big business and big pharma tells him without question. Did you know GMO foods are totally safe? Just ask Novella, he will tell you. He is an expert on everything he is told. So what if he doesn't know the facts.phoodoo
August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PST

Leave a Reply