NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Journalists shouldn't live by weekly journals

Posted By

Tags

A review in JAMA shows that journal article findings that a treatment worked were contradicted 16 percent of the time by later studies. And another 16 percent of the time, studies found weaker results than earlier suggested. So nearly a third of original published results did not hold up to further scrutiny.

Dartmouth and VA researchers Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz have warned about news coverage that is “Too Much Too Soon” in coverage of presentations at scientific meetings.

For those journalists who live off weekly journals for their stories, and who fail to follow up on subsequent findings, the same “too much too soon” message is valid.

You might also like

Comments (2)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Ira Allen

July 15, 2005 at 2:16 pm

I was, frankly, surprised that 64% of studies had findings that were upheld!