Michael Glick|Alonso Carrasco–Labra
Misinterpretations, mistakes, or just misbehaving
800000 citations added annually medline national library medicine database citations mined 5200 journals indexed database1national institutes health national library medicinecitations added medline fiscal yearhttpswwwnlmnihgovbsdstatscitaddedhtmldate accessed february 3 2019google scholar 2national center biotechnology information national library medicine nml cataloghttpswwwncbinlmnihgovnlmcatalogdate accessed february 3 2019google scholar although 871 dental journals presently listed national library medicine catalog 661 english 131 indexed viewed pubmed web site3national center biotechnology information pubmedhttpswwwncbinlmnihgovpubmeddate accessed february 3 2019google scholar estimated 27000 articles retrieved annually using single search term dentistry roughly translates 1 article published discipline every 20 minutes however small portion articles published estimated 6000 printed electronic dental journals worldwide4oclc worldcatdentistryhttpswwwworldcatorgsearchqkw3adentistrydblist638fq28x03ajrnlor28x03ajrnlx43adigital29293eln3aengqtfacetln3adate accessed february 3 2019google scholar proliferation journals voluminous rate publication motivated authors eagerness generate new knowledge also often prompted ambitions job security promotions rigor science peer review editorial processes differs considerably journal journal unfortunately often leaves onus able discern relevance importance content shoulders reader readers biomedical literature lack training skills distinguish good bad reporting separate good bad science behooves peer reviewers editors custodians dental literature keep mind vast majority dentists scientists clinicians practitioners search new relevant information guidance unfortunately resources published dental literature assist readers detecting fallacious specious published clinical studies5carrascolabra brignardellopetersen r azarpazhooh glick guyatt gh practical approach evidencebased dentistry x avoid misled clinical studies results dentistryjada 2015 147 919924google scholar informed health choices framework interesting attempt empower public case schoolaged children effectively assess trustworthiness treatment claims6chalmers oxman ad austvolldahlgren et alkey concepts informed health choices framework helping people learn assess treatment claims make informed choicesbmj evid based med 2018 23 2933crossref pubmed scopus 33 google scholar international collaboration focused approach preparing children recognize reliable unreliable health carerelated claims use information trustworthy sources inform decisions list key concepts includes 3 steps recognizing unreliable basis claim understanding whether comparisons fair reliable making informed choices7austvolldahlgren oxman ad chalmers et alkey concepts people need understand assess claims treatment effectsj evid based med 2015 8 112125crossref pubmed scopus 35 google scholar represents probably 1 significant efforts toward increasing health literacy critical thinking public levelthe rigor science peer review editorial processes differs considerably journal journal unfortunately often leaves onus able discern relevance importance content shoulders reader rigor science peer review editorial processes differs considerably journal journal unfortunately often leaves onus able discern relevance importance content shoulders reader reporting research outcomes published literature far perfect shortcomings loosely divided 3 different categories spin misinterpretation inappropriate methodology spin tactic commonly used politicians advertisers slant implication narrative positive sometimes even negative message often used deceptive way others interpret information way represent reality extreme situations spin used distort exaggerate argument similar strawman fallacy unfortunately spin commonly used skew misreport study outcomes scientific literature8boutron ravaud p misrepresentation distortion research biomedical literatureproc natl acad sci u 2018 115 26132619crossref pubmed scopus 114 google scholar 9fleming ps evidence spin clinical trials surgical literatureann transl med 2016 4 385crossref pubmed scopus 7 google scholar spin found results conclusion sections abstracts well results discussion conclusion sections main text10boutron dutton ravaud p altman dg reporting interpretation randomized controlled trials statistically nonsignificant results primary outcomesjama 2010 303 20582064crossref pubmed scopus 503 google scholar study nonrandomized studies found least 1 example spin abstract 107 128 assessed articles 84 erroneous use causal language identified 68 53 abstracts11lazarus c haneef r ravaud p boutron classification prevalence spin abstracts nonrandomized studies evaluating interventionbmc med res methodol 2015 15 85crossref pubmed scopus 74 google scholar epidemiologic studies spin also occur researchers provide incomplete presentation study results omitting overemphasizing presentation absolute effects favor relative effects12alonsocoello p carrascolabra brignardellopetersen r et alsystematic reviews experience major limitations reporting absolute effectsj clin epidemiol 2016 72 1626abstract full text full text pdf pubmed scopus 35 google scholar example 2015 world health organization released report carcinogenicity consumption red processed meat report concluded processed meat example salami bacon convincing cause colon cancer extent wellestablished association smoking lung cancer13world health organization qa carcinogenicity consumption red meat processed meathttpswwwwhointfeaturesqacancerredmeatendate accessed february 3 2019google scholar claim based epidemiologic data showing relative risk 118 means people consuming processed meat 18 increased risk developing colon cancer compared consuming processed meat initially relative risk increase 18 may serious concern many read report especially considering talking chance getting cancer however 18 increased risk contextualized lifetime baseline risk colon cancer less 45 exercise means absolute terms consuming processed meat increase risk developing colon cancer 45 53 18 relative risk increase mentioned report14guyatt g false alarm red meat cancerfinancial times november 24 2015 available athttpswwwftcomcontent42259e2092b511e5bd82c1fb87bef7afdate accessed february 3 2019google scholar press eager communicate 18 relative risk increase developing colon cancer associated processed meat may excited hear reality apparent public health alarm actually based absolute risk increase developing colon cancer 08 53 45 08 many claimed erred14guyatt g false alarm red meat cancerfinancial times november 24 2015 available athttpswwwftcomcontent42259e2092b511e5bd82c1fb87bef7afdate accessed february 3 2019google scholar characterized report false alarm avoid similar issues future relative absolute measures association presented interpreted together presence spin always obvious even seasoned peer reviewers may fall prey practice even suggest adding spin final accepted manuscript15lazarus c haneef r ravaud p hopewelll altman dg boutron peer reviewers identified spin manuscripts nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions impact spin abstract conclusions limitedj clin epidemiol 2016 77 4451abstract full text full text pdf pubmed scopus 34 google scholar surprisingly spin also common practice internet much 88 health studies may reported accentuate information particular light16haneef r lazarus c ravaud p yavchitz boutron interpretation results studies evaluating intervention highlighted google health news crosssectional study newsplos one 2015 10 e0140889crossref pubmed scopus 43 google scholar readers must always make interpretation presented facts rather rely bloggers writers promulgating sometimes biased opinions via messages social media outlets misinterpretation also uncommon practice biomedical literature described interpretation study outcomes consistent may even contradict results actual study always clear happens duplicity naivet common practices include reporting p values measure effect rather likelihood result occurring chance reporting nonsignificant findings important clinical implications extrapolating clinically important considerations vitro animal studies expressing beliefs guise science improper use causal language describing ones results citing work others17brown aw bohan brown mm allison db belief beyond evidence using proposed effect breakfast obesity show 2 practices distort scientific evidenceam j clin nutr 2013 98 12981308crossref pubmed scopus 123 google scholar 18glick science doesnt care believejada 2018 149 829830pubmed google scholar example recent crosssectional study looking secondhand smoke risk factor early childhood caries ecc authors stated discussion results mean ets environmental tobacco smoke may directly cause ecc secc severeecc19nakayama ohnishi h mori association environmental tobacco smoke risk severe early childhood caries among 3yearold japanese childrencaries res 2018 53 268274pubmed google scholar crosssectional study one cannot make claim future risk developing disease condition causation able detect misinterpretations requires training education interpreting inferential statistics epidemiology need better covered pre postdoctoral dental education well continuingeducation courses inappropriate methodology includes harking hypothesizing results known jarking justifying results known p hacking20kerr nl harking hypothesizing results knownpers soc psychol rev 1998 2 196217crossref pubmed scopus 985 google scholar 21nuzzo r scientists fool stopnature 2015 526 182185crossref pubmed scopus 193 google scholar 22simmons jp nelson ld simonsohn u 21 word solutiondialogue 2012 26 47google scholar practices akin texas sharpshooter fallacy incompetent shooter sprays side barn bullets draws target around bullet holes show accurate shot examples include using wrong study designs specific research aims using inappropriate statistical tests analyzing data inappropriately examples highlighted editorial way comprehensive meant draw attention common problems errors found biomedical literature communication scientific information relies transparent reporting responsibility accurate honest reporting needs shouldered authors peer reviewers editors alike sophisticated reader also essential owing vast number accessible articles fallibility peer review system user biomedical literature needs aware deceptive practices also must able detect interpret real implications study outcomes without skill sets clinician cannot attain maintain improve competence patients fail make informed health lifestylerelated decisions increase wellbeing time come declare misinformed health care decisions threat patient wellbeing risk factor poor health outcomesa user biomedical literature needs aware deceptive practices also must able detect interpret real implications study outcomes