|
|
|
|
|
|
by rohanphadte
1801 days ago
|
|
|
Some highlights to show how health research is published: > Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy. > But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials. > Others have found similar results, and Mol’s best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted. |
|
|
"Many of the trials came from the same countries (Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey), and when John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, examined individual patient data from trials submitted from those countries to Anaesthesia during a year he found that many were false: 100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan."
I find it particularly sad, since actively promoting academic integrity would do more for those countries than anything else, bang-for-your-buck-wise. Instead, many seem to be seeking the appearance of academic success.
(OTOH, I suppose Japan and South Korea may be on that list due to some kind intense pressure to succeed.)