Most Published Research Findings Are False
From the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye.
These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."
You can read two older related papers (no sub required) here and here. This is yet more evidence of why you need to remain skeptical when initial reports of a new breakthrough make it into the mainstream media.
So....
...should we be equally skeptical of Dr. Ioannidis' findings, and consider the possibility that most research findings are correct? ;-)
I think a large factor here
I think a large factor here is the "publish or perish" mentality, e.g. for people many fields it is necessary to publish to keep your reputation in play, to justify and/or attract funding, etc.
published research findings
This worries me. I'm about to begin participation in a Phase III trial of a drug intended to help people with SPMS deal with fatigue and hopefully reduce their EDSS score. But if this Phase III was launched because Phase II research findings were promising, and if Phase II findings are faulty or flawed, then maybe I shouldn't participate in this Phase III study afterall. Maybe it's too risky. Of course since it's a double blind study, I could be in the placebo group, but if I'm not...am I putting myself in jeopardy?
By participating in ANY
By participating in ANY pre-marketing drug trial you are potentially putting yourself in jeopardy. If your doctors did not make that clear to you when you signed up then you should drop out immediately. And you should report those doctors to the Institutional Review Board at their hospital for misleading a subject.
Pre-approval drug trials are NOT therapy - you are being a guinea pig and you are risking placebo (if it is a placebo controlled trial) or adverse events that cannot be predicted.
If you aren't willing to do that or your doctors did not make that clear, then you should withdraw immediately.
PS: I'm not saying "don't be in a drug trial" - I'm saying know what you are getting yourself into and then decide.
***
Art Mellor, Accelerated Cure Project for MS, art-msnews -at- acceleratedcure.com
Oh dear, I don't want to
Oh dear, I don't want to leave the impression that the doctors didn't disclose the risks because the disclosure documents were quite thorough. And yes, it is a placebo controlled trial. I understand that I may receive the placebo and that my participation may very well not affect me positively or negatively because of this. My thought process when reading that many research findings are flawed was: does this then also indicate that the risks identified so far have not been fully disclosed? Is it only the findings that could be flawed (i.e. the analysis of the results of the trial)?
I know this is not a therapy for me. My participation is in the hope that something good will come of the study and there will, indeed, be a therapy as a result. I've done a lot of reading on how drug trials move from one Phase to another, and the review given in this process. I know it's possible that researchers will discover (or uncover) additional risks not previously identified in an earlier Phase, but my understanding was that all "known" risks as a trial moves to Phase III have been fully identified and disclosed both in the review process (to the reviewers) and to the Phase III participants.
I know I'm going to be a guinea pig, but I'd like the comfort of knowing that if there are any flaws, it's not because someone deliberately or inadvertently "overlooked" an identified, known risk.
I think you can be confident
I think you can be confident that the risks identified so far have been disclosed. It's the risks that haven't been identified that you have to keep your eyes open for.
I don't think the paper is saying people are purposely hiding information on drug safety. Contrary to popular media hype-mongering, it is not in the best interest of a drug company to start a Phase III trial with a drug that has known (but hidden) serious adverse events.
***
Art Mellor, Accelerated Cure Project for MS, art-msnews -at- acceleratedcure.com