We would all like to believe that the studies published successfully in respected medical journals and scientists have been controlled so well before the release, the easy to accept their conclusions. But as with any other activity that is required by humans, defects in the research hypotheses or methods, errors in the conduct of research and false conclusions are drawn from data that research results can lead to all researchers and clinicians in error. should be considered when conducting studies all in an effort to reduce the risk of distortions and errors in the conduct of research and a result of these weaknesses in the research standard checks and balances in the analysis of the data they generate.
Despite all the safeguards which allegedly followed during the research and studies in humans, especially to be able to bias and error can not be completely eliminated in all cases, and this reality must be accepted. However, a disturbing, because the false conclusions of the research on health is a growing interest to editors of journals and medical ethicists have, in recent times. While many clinical trials important discoveries that produce our understanding of diagnosis and treatment of human diseases to improve, many other studies lead to insignificant results, which are not really our understanding considerably. Given the enormous pressure on researchers and clinicians to statistically significant and clinically important research results published, it is probably not surprising to learn that some researchers may succumb to “Faking” pressure during their findings of their research, not every hospital (or statistically) significant conclusions lead. Although overly optimistic interpretation of the research findings of researchers is a known phenomenon, to which this occurs regularly as far as was clear. But recently, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association published reveals the apparent brightness of this alarming trend, which pollutes the results of published clinical studies.
In this study, the spin-researchers, “the authors analyzed 72 randomized studies and prospective clinical research, a total of 616 documents, randomized controlled research in medical journals published in December 2006. These 72 studies were selected because their results are not on scientifically recognized level of statistical significance (which is usually defined as a probability of less than 5 percent of the observed results occurring by chance) are treated.
The analytical results of this study are disturbing, to say the least:
- In 18 percent of cases, the elected leaders of this “negative” studies, a title that results of their study clearly statistically or clinically significant results, despite the lack of significant findings of primary research.
- In the “Summary” (a short summary of the entire survey), 38 percent of the perpetrators is exaggerated, or minimized the results suggest that their results were indeed important. An incredible 58 percent of the authors spun “the findings are supported in their CVs to clinically significant results that do not interpret their own research published data.
- In the main part of these documents 72 search more than “spin” was identified in 29 percent of the parts of the results, 43 percent of the discussion sections, and 50 percent of the sections conclusions!
- From these 72 works Research, over 40 percent of the authors engaged in “spin” in at least two sections of the main part of their research.
The results of this study are the authors of the study to routinely exaggerate or embellish their results are not surprising for me as a cancer research scientist old, and most researchers would be surprised. But the degree of “spin” on the part of researchers, supported by the present study is a revelation. to believe Despite all the security measures, which has been adopted in the past 30-40 years to promote the research objectively and honestly, that at least half of all authors employed regularly in “spinning” to say their not-important research results in a conscious effort that their results are important, is alarming (to say the least).
These disappointing results continue to validate also the main aim of the Global Health Research Update column: an objective and critical peak current clinical and laboratory findings of Health Research to hundreds of thousands of my regular readers worldwide. Although this method of health journalism can not be as exciting or sexy as shown, that by non-physician writers and scientists in non-traditional media, it is nonetheless an honest and informative than be used by traditional media companies try new readers with their excesses and their breath (but superficial to win) reports.
