Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assessing Research Results in the Medical Literature

Assessing Research Results in the Medical Literature VIEWPOINT Trust but Verify LINICAL RESEARCH negative findings that could affect a investigator analyses of the same should contribute profitable product. For academic re- clinical studies, as published in to a generalizable searchers, positive findings carry medical journals. When industry body of evidence greater cachet and improve chances standards are applied to preclinical C that can guide de- of securing funding and career ad- academic findings, the initial re- cisions about clinical practice, per- vancement. Furthermore, findings sults often cannot be reproduced. sonal health, and health policies. Re- consistent with theories champi- Duke University, where 2 of us cently, however, the integrity of the oned by academic authors are more (R.M.C. and J.M.) work, has expe- results disseminated in the biomedi- likely to be brought forward and rienced the consequences of poor cal literature has been questioned. published. data provenance and inadequate at- Critics point to selective omission of Concerns about data quality and tention to analytic methodology in important findings from articles and the use of questionable methodolo- genomics-guided cancer research. fundamental inaccuracies in those gies prompted the current focus on Clinical trials were halted, and pub- that are published. Particular scru- 3 7 “reproducible research.” Typi- lications http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Internal Medicine American Medical Association

Assessing Research Results in the Medical Literature

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/assessing-research-results-in-the-medical-literature-8DWJ73c2y1
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2013 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6106
eISSN
2168-6114
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.829
pmid
23609490
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

VIEWPOINT Trust but Verify LINICAL RESEARCH negative findings that could affect a investigator analyses of the same should contribute profitable product. For academic re- clinical studies, as published in to a generalizable searchers, positive findings carry medical journals. When industry body of evidence greater cachet and improve chances standards are applied to preclinical C that can guide de- of securing funding and career ad- academic findings, the initial re- cisions about clinical practice, per- vancement. Furthermore, findings sults often cannot be reproduced. sonal health, and health policies. Re- consistent with theories champi- Duke University, where 2 of us cently, however, the integrity of the oned by academic authors are more (R.M.C. and J.M.) work, has expe- results disseminated in the biomedi- likely to be brought forward and rienced the consequences of poor cal literature has been questioned. published. data provenance and inadequate at- Critics point to selective omission of Concerns about data quality and tention to analytic methodology in important findings from articles and the use of questionable methodolo- genomics-guided cancer research. fundamental inaccuracies in those gies prompted the current focus on Clinical trials were halted, and pub- that are published. Particular scru- 3 7 “reproducible research.” Typi- lications

Journal

JAMA Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 24, 2013

References