Chart of the Decade: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Every Scientific Study You See
I 100% agree with the headline; <i>especially</i> for research papers even more than clinical trials.<p>However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at.<p>But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials), science is somewhat additive. Is it not possible that the low-hanging fruit had been found earlier, in the 1970s-1990s, and the problem got harder? With the advances in treatments for cardiovascular disease couldn't the problem just be harder?<p>And look at that "harm" study. Turns out it's one of many from the Women's Health Initiative [1], and it's the test of whether hormone therapy for post-menopausal women causes heart problems: that is, it's not a test of a drug to prevent heart conditions, but a test of side effects.<p>How many other of these studies are like that: studies about effects on the heart, not trials for new drugs to treat the heart? How did the ratio change before and after 2000?<p>In any case, don't trust every popular news article you read about science, particularly if it's written by Kevin Drum and posted on Mother Jones.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI%20Home.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI%20Home.aspx</a>