Two studies cast doubt on credibility of medical research | Inquirer Technology

Two studies cast doubt on credibility of medical research

/ 07:35 AM January 05, 2016

This photo provided by John Maniaci/UW Health, taken Nov. 16, 2015, shows Dr. Nathan Welham, right, visiting scientist Kohei Nishimoto, left, and associate scientist Changying Ling working in the Welham Lab at the Wisconsin Institute for Medical Research in Madison, Wis. Welham and his team have bio-engineered vocal chords that can generate a voice in humans. (John Maniaci/UW Health via AP)

Two studies released Monday found major flaws with a large number of research papers in the biomedical sciences. AP

MIAMI, United States — Two studies released Monday found major flaws with a large number of research papers in the biomedical sciences, a problem that authors say wastes billions and slows the pace of life-saving research.

One of the studies in the journal PLOS Biology analyzed a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in the last 15 years, and found that only one included a full protocol of the information necessary for evaluating and replicating the research.

Article continues after this advertisement

Scientific studies are considered valid only if they can be reproduced by outside teams of researchers who come to the same conclusions using independent methods.

FEATURED STORIES

Furthermore, most of the studies did not say where their funding came from, and did not establish whether there were any conflicts of interest.

“We hope our survey will further sensitize scientists, funders, journals and other science-related stakeholders about the need to improve these indicators,” wrote the study authors, who included prominent scientist John Ioannidis from the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University and Shareen Iqbal from Emory University.

Article continues after this advertisement

A separate study by researchers in Germany examined hundreds of published experiments on stroke and cancer research and found that most did not contain sufficient information about how many animals were used.

Article continues after this advertisement

In many papers, the number of animals used over the course of the “vanished,” making any conclusions far less reliable.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The study began with an attempt to look at the robustness of findings in a handful of preclinical papers” said first author Constance Holman, a researcher at Charite Universitatsmedizin.

“But the sheer number of missing animals stopped us in our tracks.”

Article continues after this advertisement

When human subjects are part of a clinical trial, information about how many took part is considered crucial to the findings, and would not be left out of the published study, the authors said.

An accompanying editorial in PLOS Biology noted that a “credibility crisis” is ravaging scientific research.

For instance, a recent attempt to replicate 100 psychology studies found that only 39 percent could in fact be reproduced.

Other previous research has found that “85 percent of research investment in the biomedical sciences -– or US $200 billion of the worldwide investment in 2010 -– is wasted,” it said.

The journal is launching a new Meta-Research Section aimed at improving standards.

“With our new section on data-driven meta-research, we aim to highlight that research about research is an important area of science,” wrote editor Stavroula Kousta.

“By creating a prominent forum in this field, PLOS Biology will contribute to ongoing efforts to improve research standards in the biological sciences and beyond.”

RELATED STORIES

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

Docs say no to medical marijuana

TOPICS: Information Technology, Medical research
TAGS: Information Technology, Medical research

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.