Associated Press
CHICAGO — One of the world’s leading medical journals has put itself and its competitors under the microscope with research showing that published studies are sometimes misleading and frequently fail to mention weaknesses.
Some problems can be traced to biases and conflicts of interest among outside scientists tapped by journal editors to help decide whether a research paper should be published, according to several articles in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association.
Other problems originate in news releases some journals prepare to call attention to what they believe are newsworthy studies. The releases do not routinely mention study limitations or industry funding and may exaggerate the importance of findings, according to one JAMA study.
The JAMA articles "underscore that the findings presented in the press and medical journals are not always facts or as certain as they seem," said Rob Logan, director of the Science Journalism Center at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
DeAngelis said problems are most likely to occur in research funded by drug companies, which have a vested interest in findings that make their products look good.
One JAMA report found that medical journal studies on new treatments often use only the most favorable statistic in reporting results, said author Dr. Jim Nuovo of the University of California at Davis.
Most reported only the "relative risk reduction" linked to a specific treatment, which is the percentage difference between drug-treated patients and those in a placebo group. That figure is more misleading than the "absolute risk reduction," which measures the actual difference between the treatment results compared with the placebo group, Nuovo said.
Copyright ©2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.