Comments on: Putting a positive spin on negative medical research results

By: RN in NYC

RN in NYC — Sat, 26 May 2012 11:19:48 +0000

I can’t see a way out of this reality, frankly. There is simply too much industry money to be made by actually publishing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sad and scary.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:26:16 +0000

Brilliant – wish we had that original URL….

LikeLike

By: cave76

cave76 — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:02:31 +0000

Here’s what researchers really mean when they say:

“It has long been known” . . . [I didn’t look up the original reference.]

“A definite trend is evident” . . . [These data are practically meaningless.]

“Of great theoretical and practical importance” . . . [Interesting to me.]

“While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions” . . . [An unsuccessful experiment but I still have to get it published.]

“Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study” . . . [The results of the others didn’t make any sense.]

“Typical results are shown” . . . [The best results are shown.]

“These results will be shown in a subsequent report” . . . [I might get around to this sometime if I’m pushed.]

“The most reliable results are those obtained by Jones” . . . [He was my graduate assistant.]

“It is believed that” . . . [I think]

“It is generally believed that” . . . [A couple of other guys think so, too.]

“It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding occurs” . . . [I don’t understand it.]

“Correct within an order of magnitude” . . . [Wrong]

“It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigations in this field” . . . [This is a lousy paper, but so are all the others on this miserable topic.]

“Thanks are due to Joe Blotz for assistance with the experiment and to George Frink for valuable assistance” . . . [Blotz did the work and Frink explained to me what it meant.]

“A careful analysis of obtainable data” . . . [Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of beer.]

“It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomenon occurs”… [I don’t understand it.]

“After additional study by my colleagues”… [ They don’t understand it either.]

“It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation in this field”… [I quit.]

Source – University of Chicago http://home.uchicago.edu/~jxu/useful%20research.htm [that url is dead now]

LikeLike

By: Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:12:56 +0000

I’ve read many journal articles in which the study authors reported that results were “disappointing” or “surprising”. These words themselves suggest that the researchers went into the project hoping consciously or not for specific outcomes. When those outcomes are being paid for by the drug company whose drug you are studying, it must be even more “disappointing” unless you can massage the numbers to cherry-pick your results. What has happened to pure science?

LikeLike

By: F.C.

F.C. — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:54:29 +0000

Very discouraging. “…The problem, however, is that scientists are rarely neutral about the results of their trial…” That is one big problem indeed — especially for doctors who read the biased spin and then alter their prescribing or treatment decisions on patients. But what can be done to curb this bias?

LikeLike

By: Lab Rat

Lab Rat — Sun, 15 May 2011 04:04:46 +0000

“….33% of abstracts contained a “high level” of spin, defined as no acknowledgement of the negative primary outcome, no expression of uncertainty, and no recommendation to study the issue further in another trial….”

This is critically important. Most docs don’t have time to delve into the entire journal article so fast-forward to the abstract’s conclusions, one-third of which have the “spin” that the study’s funders want it to have.

LikeLike