In the junk science of
wild guess predictions
of the future climate,
what gets published
seems to be based
on how scary the
predictions are !
But predictions of the future
climate are wrong so often
that whatever the "consensus"
is, I'd bet on the minority.
Medical studies,
getting published,
in medical journals,
are more important.
They are read by doctors.
And new drugs,
a typical subject,
could affect
your health, and
possibly your life.
So you'd hope medical
journals were very careful
about what they publish.
It's a well known fact that
study abstracts are not
a reliable summary of studies.
There have been studies
to prove that.
If I have a study to read,
I never read the abstract.
There's a natural desire
to show something positive ,
for a great deal of work
on a scientific study.
Looking solely at an abstract,
or a press release is not
sufficient to understand
the findings of a study.
The next question is whether
articles about studies, when
published in scientific journals,
are more reliable summaries
than study abstracts.
In the world of "publish-or-perish"
academics, the more attention
your research creates, the
more attractive you can become
to funding sources, public or private.
No one seems to care about
study funding sources or
conflicts of interest,
as long as they aren't
traced to the private sector.
So most of the good science
from industry is not published.
We see it in products that work,
from cell phones to drugs.
Most of the published papers
and spin comes from universities
funded by our tax dollars.
(A)
A study of "spin" in
published journal articles
about medical studies:
Source:
"Level and Prevalence of Spin
in Published Cardiovascular
Randomized Clinical Trials Reports
with Statistically Nonsignificant
Primary Outcomes?
JAMA Network Open DOI:
10.1001/jamanetworkopen2019.2622
Study authors
looked at RCTs
( randomized clinical trials )
the double-blind
"gold standard"
of science.
Authors searched
six high impact
medical journals
searching for reports
with a clearly defined
primary outcome
and no statistical
significance,
a p-value >0.05.
They identified about 600 studies
from 2015 to 2017, but only
93 studies met their criteria.
The authors searched for "spin"
which they defined as the
“use of specific reporting strategies,
for whatever motive, to highlight
that the experimental treatment
is beneficial, despite a statistically
nonsignificant difference
for the primary outcome,
or to distract the reader from
statistically nonsignificant results.”
The first
problem is that
scientific journals
favor studies with
positive findings.
They assume no one
cares about any study
that fails to
prove something.
So, if study
conclusions are not
“statistically significant",
the report authors
will want to use "spin"
to make their report
of the study
seem important.
Unfortunately,
"spin" was
everywhere:
everywhere:
-- In 11% of study
report titles, and in
40% to 50% of the results
and conclusion sections,
of both abstracts
and full text.
-- 60% of abstracts or full text
had at least one section of spin,
and in 26% of studies,
spin was found
in every part
of the report.
“… industry-funded
(for profit) research
had a lower proportion
of spin (27%) than nonprofit
funded research.” (40%)
“in approximately 67% of CV
(cardiovascular)
RCT reports, the reporting
and interpretation
of outcomes is inconsistent
with actual results
in at least on e section
of the article.”
The articles reviewed
were later cited
by other studies,
a median of 7 times
after their publication,
which amplifies their spin.
(B)
Propagation and
amplification
of falsified data
Source:
"Evaluation of the
Inclusion of Studies
Identified by the FDA
as Having Falsified Data
in the Results of Meta-analyses:
The Example of the Apixaban trials"
JAMA Internal Medicine DOI:
10.1001/jmainternmed.2018.7661
A group of researchers
tracked the propagation
of falsified data,
the worst form of “spin”.
Apixaban, a new anticoagulant,
was compared to the standard use
of warfarin (Coumadin) in treating a
trial fibrillation, an arrhythmia
of the heart, in a widely publicized
clinical trial.
The FDA found falsified data
in the clinical trial, altering
the outcome of the study
from a beneficial effect
of apixaban over warfarin
to a neutral position.
The known flawed study,
was later cited in
22 English language
meta-analysis papers.
Almost half of these
meta-analyses
had conclusions
that would be altered
by eliminating the one
questionable study.
And in a third of the cases,
reanalysis resulted in
a very different outcome,
where more apixaban
was no longer favored.