Follow this blog:
RSS

Most medical studies are wrong

By | October 20, 2010, 6:26 AM PDT

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” Dr. John Ioannidis told The Atlantic recently.

It may be the truest statement yet made on medical research.

It’s a story flying around the medical community today, although it’s based on a single five-year old study, from a team of Greek researchers headed by Ioannidis, titled simply Why Most Published Research Findings are False.

So why is it news now? Possibly because Ioannidis became division chief of the Stanford Prevention Research Center in September. The picture is from the press release.

What Ioannnidis and his Greek team did was a statistical analysis of major medical research papers, finding out that many of the most popular had results that were later reversed after further study.

This goes beyond the placebo effect we talked about last November. It turns out that critics of medical research are right:

  • The smaller the study the more likely it’s wrong.
  • The smaller the effect seen in a study, the more likely it’s wrong.
  • The more variables tested in a study the more likely it’s wrong.
  • The more flexible designs, definitions, and outcomes are, the more likely it’s wrong.
  • The greater the financial interest in being right the more likely it’s wrong.
  • The hotter the field of research, the more likely it’s wrong.

Much of this is stuff your earth science teacher should have told you in junior high school. Narrow the variables. Narrow the scope. Tighten the design so only what you’re testing varies. Take your biases out of the equation.

Improving the scientific method won’t be easy. Biases like money, fame, and power are enormous. Ioannidis’ prescription is to not fall for any single study, to accept that being wrong is not a bad thing, and to have many people re-test any conclusion before acting on it.

This won’t result in perfection. Many, many studies were done on antidepressants like Zoloft, and millions of prescriptions were written, before it was found that in most cases it was no better than a placebo. The same is true with advice on mammograms and PSA tests for cancer. Or ideas like doing puzzles to fend off Alzheimer’s.

What feels right, what’s backed by big money or major institutions, is often wrong. Test it again, and again. Don’t jump to conclusions.

Pretty comforting, actually.

What I find most comforting here is that the bleeding edge health care practiced in America may be wasting money to no good effect. Progress in clinical practice may slow as a result, but more people will be helped for less money.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Healthcare

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
34
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Cancer
THE PERUVIAN NATURISTA JORGE VALERA GIVES YOU THE 10
SUPER PERUVIAN FOOD AGAINST CANCER / MALIGNANT
TUMOR. Look at the following link:
http://jvalera00.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2C65FDFFC71ACA2D!30
3.entry
Posted by abrilnatura
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Complex systems are hard
The problem is that studying complex systems is hard. You can't isolate cause and effect, they aren't repeatable, a single study takes a lot of time and money, etc. That makes it very hard for researcher biases and outside interests not to creep in.

I wonder how much of this also applies to climate change studies. Take a look at the six points Dana cited above in relation to climate change science. Most, if not all of them apply. If medical studies often are wrong, how about climate change studies?
Posted by zackers
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Oh those pesky humans again
Yeah, lots of medical research is wrong, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. And more! A key one is the degree to which the researchers are committed to a specific outcome.

In my lifetime, eggs have flip-flopped as being good/bad for you at least a half dozen times, according to various research. Lots of other examples are available, too.

The key for us, is to develop our critical thinking skills, and to stop looking to someone we can "trust" (AKA in whom/what can I blindly place my faith?), be that a shaman, minister, or researcher. Be 100% accountable for your own life, and your decisions, and you'll be miles ahead of those who act based on the latest "research."
Posted by SteveMak
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
"POLITICS" 3455 of 3600 by DANA
We are here advised to take biases out of the equation. In order to do that, readers need to know that Dana Blankenhorn has been advocating for liberal political causes -- such as government-run health care -- since the days of 300 baud modems with rubber Mickey Mouse ears.
Posted by Robert Hahn
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
This is surprising in some ways; that a medical study could be biased so blatantly. The counter to this is that like any scientific experiment, the results should be repeatable by other teams.

It is also ironic that Ioannidis published the report based on a single 5 year study. It seems to have some truth to it but at the same time shows the same weaknesses of the other studies.
Posted by sboverie
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@Robert Hahn
So what if Dana is a liberal; is the article valid or not. If it is not valid or you disagree then say so. If you don't like his articles then don't read them and complain that you don't like his articles. Skip the editorial and give us the substantive.
Posted by sboverie
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
I make it simple for myself. If the FDA says it's right, then it must be wrong, so I don't listen to what they say. They are corrupt and run by the drug companies so they are only interested in making sure that the drug companies make a profit and they don't care at who's expense in money and lives.
Posted by Alchemist001
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
A lot of "research" today tends to be guided by "the lampost effect". You know the one ....about the drunk searching for his lost keys in the dark, not where he dropped them, but where the light was better.

john ruelle
Posted by ruellej@...
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Since most medical research is no longer funded by non-profit institutions and instead is funded by corporations with a significant stake in the outcome, it should come as no surprise that the results are skewed. It's yet another example of the privatization of America, from private prisons to paramilitary organizations.

The turn of the 21st century will be remembered as a time when government services were outsourced to the highest bidder (or highest briber). I hope our society can recover from it!
Posted by omb00900@...
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Hahn.., calling someone a liberal does not mean they are wrong. Even Hitler kept the trains running on time and at least that was good. I may not agree with all that Blankenhorn advocates but I use my faculties of discrimination to evaluate and judge wether something is false or not.., except for anything that the liars at the FDA and Big Pharma say, lol.
Posted by Alchemist001
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@hahn, et al
One of the greatest illuminations of maturity is to recognize that the truly deranged will always self-identity within at most a sentence or two, or in some cases just a few words. By their implications (and imprecations) ye shall know them...

When you start off with a title that demands 'politics' as a subject, and tosses in an obscure numerical irrelevancy to boot, and especially when the material in question does not mention or support any kind of political content, it's clear what's yet to come. And that it will not be worth more than a cursory skim, at least if one were seeking reasonable conversation. However, as an indication of the complete failure of radical do-nothingism, it's simply perfect.

I propose, Dana, that we do our own scientific study. Let's measure how often the ranting mob that shows up here to trash all things post-15th century have even a shred of useful intent, much less factual content or even something, anything, to share in the pursuit of honest dialogue. Let's start by measuring say an index of facts against insults and/or namecalling... and let's present the outcome as a ratio with facts as the denominator of the fraction, so the lower the number the more accurate and logical any conclusion of worth drawn from it would be.

There. I got all the way through this without calling anyone a neaderthal (apologies to ancestors but it carries the right tone) windbag. I'm so proud.
Posted by semi-adult
Updated - 20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Remember the "scientific consensus"?

1979 - There is broad scientific consensus that saccharine causes cancer. WRONG. The National Cancer Institute delisted it as a possible carcinogen in 2000.

1979 - Increased dietary fiber can significantly reduce the incidence of colon cancer. WRONG. 1999 - "No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found. 2005 "High fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer."

1985 - Broad scientific consensus concludes that acid rain is destroying lakes and forests and "is a threat to our health." WRONG. 1991 - The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study concluded that acid rain "was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems."

Beware the broad scientific consensus!
Posted by bb_apptix
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
This book has a wealth of fascinating information on medical studies, alternative therapies and a shocking chapter on the disaster in AIDs care that occurred in South Africa. Required reading for sceptics everywhere.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287603700&sr=8-1
Posted by Nuff Said!
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
zackers
Medical studies are on a wide variety of subjects. That is why they are often wrong -- they're not often replicated.

Studies on global warming have been ongoing, covering the same subject, for many, many years, and are easily replicable. I know pretending that global warming isn't real is a great dream, but that's all it is.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Robert Hahn
It's true. I have been writing about technology since the age of 300 baud modems with Mickey Mouse ears.

But I've only been writing about health care in any depth since 2007. And my coverage of the policy side in that issue only goes back to 2008, when people on my beat began talking about it a lot.

Oh, and in my youth I was a congressional intern for Sen. James L. Buckley. I guess he'd be a liberal now, but he wasn't then. And neither was I.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Apologies on behalf of semi-adult
I never knew that the boldface tag could be extended across several responses if it weren't closed.

See if that worked.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Gee - do you suppose the same can be side for AGW?
Posted by jpouchet
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Global warming.. or more correctly climate change.. is part of the planet we live on.. I think the debate is whether it is anthropomorphic.
"Global Warming" and "Medical Research" have the same basis.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the scientists.. BUT medical researchers can bring useful conclusions.. global warming "scientists" can just reel in the dollars...
Posted by Katie5757
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Hmmm I guess that could be said for the studies related to the
pandemic of vaccinations being foisted upon us by moneyed
interests.
Posted by kevin_kreitz
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Most scientific studies are wrong, not just medical...
A bio-tech scientist in Dallas once told me that MOST studies are unreliable, but the primary reason is not listed in this article.

I think the best and easiest solution would be to require that before a study is published, a second, verifying study be performed by a not related entity and the results analyzed by the publishing agency for non-collusion. If the two studies do not agree, then neither research is published. If both studies agree, then both studies are co-published with the initiating company given special recognition as blazing the new trail, and the verifying company as a co-developer with shared rights.

Details: Here is how the problem is caused...

Company A does a study, and publishes. Company B considers repeating the study, and to what end? If it proves their competitor was right, then they would not want to publish it, and all those dollars would be lost. So instead of taking on a risky study, the risk being the original study and competitor was right, they instead fund a study in a brand new area, and they publish it. Company C looks at the studies of companies A and B and decides not to duplicate their studies, because if A and/or B are right, then Company C's study is lost money. So instead Company C funds a study in a new area.

The result is that each study is usually only done once with no verification. But since studies usually reference prior studies as the basis for their extended research, they are referencing invalid studies as well, and the science gets worse and more unreliable because of the cascading invalid conclusions.

The solution? You might consider a verification organization not tied to profits. It's only job is to validate or invalidate studies. But who would pay for it? Conservatives would see this as expanded government, which nixes this idea. Progressives would need to find a way to pay for the cost of the agency, which might be hard. So we need to take the politics out of it.

The most simple and straight forward is the proposal where two companies co-publish validating studies, as mentioned in the second sentence of this posting.
Posted by dwsimpso
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dwsimpso
I think you've put your finger on the real problem, which is changing behavior based on a single study, and not requiring multiple studies of the same subject, from different angles, before accepting an offer of proof.

This does sort of validate the FDA's "go slow" approach in drug approvals, though. And its willingness to re-visit decisions based on later evidence.

The key take away the professor wants us to get, however, is simple. Science is hard. Wrong turns are more common than right ones. That does not mean you reject science. It means you respect the method rather than just buying any single result as truth.

And to the global warming deniers -- it's no longer in doubt. Human activity is boiling the planet. If you care about your grandchildren you'll change how the economy runs. And we can.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
So howcome every reply to your blog today is repoted as spam? Pick up a dedicated enemy?

Your article makes complete sense and is something I have suspected for years.
Posted by becabill
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
What I do find encouraging is that eventually an invalid study is overturned. It may take too long in some cases, but a fallacy doesn't persist forever.

One problem is that we aren't teaching critical thinking and how science works in our schools. I remember that about 15 years ago it was reported that Alzheimers patients were fount to have a large concentration of Aluminum in their brains and so people thought that Aluminum was a cause of the disease and threw out all their Aluminum pots and pans. No one ever offered, "Correlation does not prove causation" or something to that effect. I simply made the arguement that if that were true, then we'd have noticed a spike in the occurance of Alzheimers in people with cronic heartburn (like me) because we consume a tremendous amount of Aluminum in products like Maalox.(If you check the label now, they've since replaced the Aluminum Hydroxide it used to have with Calcium Carbonate, or chalk).

A few years laters, they said, "Never mind." It turns out that the concentrating of Aluminum is an effect of the disease and not a cause.

People want to have answers and will jump at any explanation that makes them feel more comfortable, even if the siezed upon explanation has no merit. It is hard to ignore this emotional need and pay attention to the facts and what conclusions are plausable and supportable by those facts.
Posted by Peleg
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Response to app_tix. Did you actually read any of the National Assessment of Acid Precipitation report you cite? Reading just the summary is enough to make it clear that your conclusion about the effect of acid rain cannot be drawn from this report. Be sure to read the WHOLE summary CAREFULLY!
Posted by Prof Bob
20th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Why would you say he would be a liberal today?
He first ran for the Senate as a member of the Conservative party with a pro-life agenda that included a belief that the word ?person? in the 14th Amendment should be applied to embryos.

No insult intended to the man, but by todays main stream media standards he would be ranked just to right of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware on the right wing wacko scale for a belief like that.
Posted by Hates Idiots
21st Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
CLIMATE CHANGE IS JUST AS WRONG
How many variables do you think there are in climate modeling?
Posted by jimmy37
23rd Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
jimmy37
All you need to do is track global average temperatures. They have been rising for decades, and most years in the recent past set records.

Please. Stop with the ignorance. It's killing your children.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
25th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hates Idiots
I assume you're talking here about my former boss, Sen. Buckley, whose 14th Amendment views were in place before the 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade.

He was a fierce Catholic, but overall his views would be very moderate by today's GOP standards.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
25th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
I don't know how the subject changed to AGW, but tracking "global average temperatures" makes about as much sense as tracking "global average curency"
Posted by ruellej@...
25th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
It seems likely that the findings can be applied to all studies, not just
medical. If that is the case, wouldn't it apply to this study as well?
Posted by Allen.
25th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
The comparison between AGW and medical studies is dubious.

In Climate Change we have hard numbers, decades of them, all
across the world.

A thermometer is a thermometer is a thermometer in France, the
UK, or Africa.

But medical studies depend on people telling the doctor whether
they FEEL better.

And we know that medications affect every person a bit
differently.

So you end up with the problem of trying to filter out only the
effects that are held in common.

It's still going to be subjective, as the human body is much more
complex and harder to measure than the climate engine.
Posted by Jkirk3279
27th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Most medical studies are wrong
Global studies aside, I have noticed a major change in weather patterns within my lifetime. A major decline in wildlife dependent on clean water and their natural habitat. I've seen the clear cutting of our forests and the diminishing size of the logs taken from our forests. I don't need a study to tell me man is causing chaos and devastation with every acre harvested (raped) for softer bathroom tissue. I live here and can see it. Critical thinking requires opening your eyes to see for yourself.
As for the medical studies and whether they are right or wrong again critical thinking and looking at the information. A small study of 1000 people is such a minor segment of the population how can someone even assume the study is valid. For years children's medications were tested on adults and up until recently adult men only. Medication for menopause and purely female related medication only studied in adult men. So, to me we've made some progress but not enough for me to just take a pill advertised on TV and health magazines. I want to know what I take or what I give my family is safe. Show me a worthwhile really investigated study and I'll decide. Because in the end I'm the one that suffers the consequences of a drug companies greed or its willingness to heal.
Posted by red bandit1
28th Oct 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Jkirk3279
The problems you point out are real. But they can be dealt with through:

1. Larger numbers.
2. Objective measures.
3. Experimental design so as to isolate a single variable.

All these things are hard to do. But they're worthwhile. And they're all specified in the scientific method.

We don't just study animals because they're animals. We also do tests on animals first because we can isolate variables in animals. We can make sure that all the rats are controlled, that they're from a consistent genetic line. We can even make certain that the genetic line being tested has things in common with humans.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Nov 2010
0 Votes
+ -
red bandit1
In terms of medical studies this is the job of the FDA, and the FDA fell down on the job for many years.

As to climate change, yes, the symptoms are observable within a single lifetime. It was a mistake in my view for Al Gore to make this a political issue, and to use science in order to make what is in the end a political point.

An economic argument -- the scarcity of resource energy vs. the potential abundance of device energy harvested from what is all around us (including that increasingly warm air) would do us all better.

And if you don't think you can harvest energy from the surrounding air, you have never seen a heat pump. Heat pumps have been around for many decades. My dad tried to sell them in the 1960s, when they were room-sized. They take residual heat out of the cold air and pump it inside, or do the reverse. I suspect they can be engineered to be energy suppliers, but I'm not an engineer so I don't know how.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
20th Nov 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!