@MYTH©bubu
MYTH©bubu :
Vous êtes au courant que les études avant d’être publiées sont relues et
validées par des comités indépendants ?
Corollary 5 : The greater the financial and other
interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research
findings are to be true. Conflicts
of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very
common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and
sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots.
Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in
a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise
seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other
reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or
tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results
and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review
process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their
findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical
evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].
Corollary 6 : The hotter a scientific field (with more
scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be
true. This seemingly paradoxical
corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings
decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This
may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe
disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on
the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of
the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing
and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results.
Why Most
Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Heil Μπουρλά !