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/.

More questions about peer review: preference for splashy findings

Posted By

Categories

Tags

Publication bias in medical journals is a well-known phenomenon. The latest evidence is explained in Frederik Joelving’s intriguing piece for Reuters Health, “Journal experts prefer ‘splashy’ findings.” Excerpts:

Given similar, fabricated reports that compared two treatments, reviewers from a pair of top-line orthopedic journals recommended publishing the fake results in 97 percent of cases when there was a difference between treatments, but only in 80 percent of cases when there was no difference.

“No-difference studies affect practice just as much as positive ones, but they aren’t as sexy,” said Dr. Seth Leopold of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the new research. “Something splashy, something new, is more exciting to everybody.”

The problem is that favoring studies that identify, say, a new drug as superior to an older one will make the newer drug seem better than it really is.

As a consequence, when doctors scour the scientific literature about a given treatment, they don’t see the whole picture.

“We felt that these results really confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that positive bias occurs at the level of peer review. That is critically important for the integrity of the medical literature,” he added.

You might also like

Comments

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

Comments are closed.