Don’t Believe What You Read About Medical Research
Background: Previous studies indicate that in published reports, trial results can be distorted by the use of “spin” (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment). We aimed to (1) evaluate the presence of “spin” in press releases and associated media coverage; and (2) evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.
Conclusion: “Spin” was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with “spin” in press releases was the presence of “spin” in the article abstract conclusion.
Entire study from PLOS Medicine.
Spin was found in 40 percent of scientific article abstract conclusions.
Terrifying.
Isn’t “spin just another word for biases?
I figure I’ve often heard is that half of new findings published in top, peer reviewed journal cannot be duplicated by private labs.
I actually expected the prevelancy to be higher, actually.
This is not just limited to medical research but is also true in just about every other field
Interestingly this cohort study was done in France. I do not know the authors. However, this is consistent with 3 decades of my reading this type of medical research material. I love EurekAlert but part of the fun of parsing through it everyday is you get at least one really good laugh a day at some of the unbelievably looney studies being hawked as landmark research.
One of the most common not-so-funny jokes are research studies showing people who eat healthier are healthier. Of course, many patients with severe disorders have very restricted or oddball diets and could never digest, assimilate, tolerate, digest or excrete a “healthy diet.” Our families with severe food allergies would never survive anything the magical heart surgeon Mehmet Oz MD recommends that he does personally for his own diet.
The most important variable for those of us who are clinicians in medical subspecialties is WHO did the medical research. We all know from years at our academy and college national meetings, training, reading etc that WHO did the work is most important variable.
For example, anything done by James Yankaskas MD, Head of ICU and Critical Care at UNC is going to be first rate. It then goes typically on to multi-center replication for further work. We all know who the real researchers are in our respective fields.
Fools always demand double-blind placebo-controlled research as the gold standard for evidence-based medicine and challenge reimbursement without them. It’s great when possible. But even when “gold standard” research completely falls apart, spin can artificially generate sufficient centripetal force to make it appear to hold it’s center. . . at least until it’s broadcast on the major networks.
RCTs are great but need to be understood within the larger context of a huge real-world patient population multiple genetic defects, too many meds on board, too many symptoms from unrelated diseases or accidents who are real people needing real answers from researchers.
The paradigm for excellent research must come from ethical, brilliant top researchers. . .who don’t need spin. . . just valuable reproducible results that save and transform lives. Great medical research comes from those who do not compromise.
Dorothy Calabrese MD
Allergy & Immunology, San Clemente, CA
The actual scientific results should not be called into question because of “spin”; instead readers should seek to understand the study and look for hidden negatives in the body.
This just makes it that much harder for us (as non-experts) to believe anything we read or hear on the media about medical research (and any kind of research for that matter). If we have to go back and double-check the content, findings, techniques, and everything else used in a study to see whether they are reliale…then what’s the point of doing a study in the first place? Terrible.