[Paleopsych] Discover: A third of medical research wrong?
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Tue Jan 3 22:35:59 UTC 2006
A third of medical research wrong?
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/medical-research-wrong/
November 16, 2005 | Biology & Medicine
The latest medical research is wrong about one-third of the time, that is...
according to the latest medical research. A survey of 49 highly cited
medical
studies by epidemiologist John Ioannidis found the results of 14 studies
were
contradicted or downplayed by later research. Ioannidis' survey raises some
hard
questions. Is there a fundamental flaw in medical research, or is this just
part
of scientific progress?
Problems occurred most often in studies that did not use randomized samples
-
five out of six were contradicted. A group that includes two high-profile
cases
of preventive therapies for coronary-artery disease. One study recommended
hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women -- a treatment that
some
doctors now believe may increase chances of developing the disease. The
other
therapy used high doses of vitamin E to keep the coronary arteries healthy,
a
treatment that was later shown to be ineffective in randomized trials.
In spite of the conflicting research, Nutritional Epidemiologist Eric Rimm
is
standing by his work. Rimm's study showed vitamin E reduced the risk of
developing coronary-artery disease in healthy men ages 40 to 75. "I think
what we
originally reported hasn't really been re-tested," he said. The follow-up
study
cited by Ioannidis tested whether vitamin E prevented heart attacks and
strokes
in men and women over the age of 55 who already had cardiovascular disease
or
diabetes. According to Rimm, the health benefits of antioxidants like
vitamin E
provide is still a lively debate. "I thought our findings would be more
generalizable," Rimm said, "But I think our results stand up, it just
doesn't
protect people with existing heart disease."
Over generalizing research results is one way that Ioannidis sees medical
studies
being misused by doctors. "There are many issues that are not finalized with
a
single study," he said, "issues like trade-offs between benefits and harms,
side-effects, and generalizability." If Ioannidis' work can be said to have
a
moral it is - don't put too much faith in one study.
Solving the problem is not as simple as sticking to randomized experiments
or
requiring results to be duplicated. Observational studies, like Rimm's
vitamin E
research, are not randomized, but they can provide a foundation for future
research. Likewise, duplicating research results can be unethical, and that
may
be the case for the 11 studies in his survey that have not been followed-up.
One
case is a clinical trial of the drug Zidovudine, a medication that was 75
percent
effective in preventing HIV positive mothers from transmitting the disease
to
their unborn children. Re-testing Zidovudine would require exposing some
unborn
children to an increased risk of HIV infection. So, how should patients deal
with
the confusion?
"We should switch our mode of thinking about a statistically significant
result
to what I would call a credible result," said Ioannidis. He proposes a
system of
rating published research based on the rigor of its experimental design,
sample
size and amount of supporting research. "There is nothing wrong about
acknowledging that all of the research published in medical journals is not
one-hundred percent credible," he said. "There is no perfect research."
Ioannidis advises patients to protect themselves by taking a more critical
approach to their doctor's advice. "Ask not just 'is it good for me?' but
'what
is the uncertainty?"- Zach Zorich
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list