New research every day one way or another, each study have claimed to have found a breakthrough, but most studies are not filled with rigorous science. For these studies we have to be especially careful.
"Seeing only believe hear all do not believe." Said this man is Edgar Allan Poe (and possibly Benjamin Franklin). In fact, really, you see most medical research or not blowing so much, or is completely worthless. The more fantastic, the more there is a breakthrough, the more human research or innovative thinking, the more doubtful. In fact, if carefully reviewed, or over time, many studies are untenable.
A few years ago, Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford School of Medicine wrote an article entitled "Why the majority of published studies are false?"
In the article, he noted that the study published journal articles now most of them are false, there is growing concern that the phenomenon of false modern academic circles, in the article he detailed figures explain why most seemingly "found Study light "are present very serious problems.
Professor Ioannidis medical research fraud concerns extended to the entire field of scientific research, but do not understand academic concepts and terminology of ordinary readers, they know how to see the real value of the research or pure shit? Even many articles in peer-reviewed professional journals published there are errors, the study written press releases, public readers how to identify?
In this regard, the Boston pediatrician and Society for Science-Based Medicine of the industry's most weighty blog editor Clay Jones said: "The unusual discovery requires unusual evidence to support."
In fact, to judge the value of an article in the end there is no discussion, the most convenient way is to look at the source. Ioannidis said the peer review process is not perfect, even if it is through peer-reviewed articles, of which only a small part of their studies seriously. He believes that any decent article should be addressed by the assessment group of industry experts, this is the minimum requirement.
Jones said that by the peer-reviewed articles, but also need to check their published journal articles such as the prestigious journal "New England Journal of Medicine" is more worth reading than other small journal articles. However, this method is not insurance, because "Pediatrics" Although more professional, but the influence is much smaller than the big magazines. Great magazine is not entirely reliable, "natural" and "The Lancet" has been published false research. But the big magazine as a reference is quite reliable.
Jones said that many sites will be forwarded to collect a wide variety of articles, these articles but never published in peer-reviewed journal. These articles may be only a company's closed-door study, in order to promote its only advantage of their products, although some products through the presentation in the conference, but did not recognize the academic publishing industry from these products, and the fact that some companies are completely fabricated.
MAC AIDS Fund sponsored a survey show that about one-third of American teens do not know the HIV belong to sexually transmitted diseases. But the publication of this survey is just a marketing company, not any peer-reviewed journals.
Headlines blowing more powerful information, the more you want to be alert.
Those results confirmed that there is sufficient research articles higher reliability, but there may be false news, such as a research article pointed out, by observation of the patient unconscious eye movement can effectively determine whether the patient is suffering from ADHD, but we We know that ADHD is diagnosed more parents and teachers rely on weekdays observation.
In this study, Dr. Moshe Fried Tel Aviv University, said the use of other methods because of negligence or unintentional mistakes cause results wrong, but their test judgment is unconscious eye movements, the diagnosis of ADHD is a perfect physiological indicators.
However, this study only 22 adults each, for such an important discovery, but the sample is so small, not enough to prove what is obvious.
If a new treatment study to explore the small sample size, there was no control group, no double-blind experiment, and did not repeat the experiment data, then do not easily believe.
Most media reports to the general reader will not inform all of this information, the reader can only rely on their own experience to judge.
Studies based on existing evidence on the basis of no more credible than the existing research evidence. If the study's authors or sponsors can benefit from the research results, we must take it seriously. Heavy small research institutions publish findings almost certainly false. There are those who have never published the article is not worth wasting your time.
(Compiled: Wang via The Daily Beast)
Baidu know without a daily newspaper written permission, any units and individuals shall not in any way or reason to know that Baidu content published daily use, copy, modify, copied, transmitted, or bundled with other products use, sale. Where the infringement of intellectual property Baidu know daily, it will pursue its legal responsibility according to the law. Application for authorization and commercial cooperation please contact zhidaoribao@baidu.com
Article Source: Baidu know daily (http://zhidao.baidu.com/daily)
Original link: http: //zhidao.baidu.com/daily/view id = 930?