DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidencelive16-Programme-160617.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidencelive16-Programme-160617.Pdf 1 Notice of photography and filming Evidence live 2016 is being visually documented. By attending you acknowledge that you have been informed that you may be caught on “A thoroughly enjoyable camera during this event. Images taken will be treated as the property of Evidence Live and may be used in the future for promotional purposes. experience. I look These images may be used without limitation by any organisation approved by CEBM & The BMJ and edited prior to publication as seen forward to attending fit for purpose. Images will be available on the internet accessible to Evidence Live again internet users throughout the world including countries that may have less extensive data protection than partnering countries. All films in the future!” will be securely stored on University of Oxford servers. Please make yourself known at registration if you wish to remain off camera. 2 Welcome back to Oxford for EvidenceLive 2016 Welcome to Evidence Live 2016. This is our fifth conference, hosted jointly by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford and The BMJ (British Medical Journal). Due to popular demand, we have extended this years conference to cover 3 full days of discussion and learning around 5 main themes: Carl Heneghan, Director, Centre for Improving the Quality of Research Evidence Evidence-Based Medicine Disentangling the Problems of Too Much and Too Little Medicine Transforming the Communication of Evidence for Better Health Training the Next Generation of Leaders in Applied Evidence Translating Evidence into Better-Quality Health Services With a 22% increase on abstract submissions 2016 hosts more than 160 presentations, posters and workshops from 28 countries around the world. The conference includes an international line-up of world leading speakers whose Fiona Godlee, remit is to stimulate, provoke, entertain and inspire. Evidence Live encourages Editor in Chief, BMJ debate on the current status and future directions of Evidence-Based Medicine. We are also providing an additional session. “Better Decisions Require Better Evidence” is an open meeting at 17:15 on Wednesday June 22nd that will start the campaign to prioritise and explore the potential solutions to better evidence for better decisions. We hope that you are able to join us and you enjoy the next 3 days of Evidence Live 2016. EL2016 Conference Committee. For updates: www.evidencelive.org or follow us on @EvidenceLive #EvidenceLive 3 08:00 Registration Open 09:00 Evidence Live 2016 Preview, Lecture Theatre Two (L2) 09:45 Introduction: Welcome to Evidence Live 2016 (L1) WEDNESDAY 10:00 Keynote Session, Lecture Theatre One (L1) 22 JUNE Improving the Quality of Research Evidence Fiona Godlee (Session Chair), Hilda Bastian, Ivan Oransky, John Ioannidis PROGRAMME 11:15 Tea and coffee break 11:45 Improving the Quality of Transforming Translating Evidence into Workshops Research Evidence (L2) Communication of Better-Quality Health Evidence for Services (L5) Better Health (L3) Riaz A. Agha: A Systematic Clive Adams: Tweeting links Alys Mathers: Delivering Dr Khurshid Talukder: Review of the Methodological to Cochrane Schizophrenia Speech and Language Conflicts of Interest in Global and Reporting Quality of Group reviews: a randomised Therapy services Nutrition Research (C2) Case Series in Surgery controlled trial to mainstream schools Dr Peter Oettgen: Seon-Young Lee: Support Kim Kristiansen: via video-conferencing: Rapid Creation of GRADE- for Reporting Guidelines Developing a Method and a service evaluation labeled recommendations in Surgical Journals System to Evaluate Clinical Ayesha Memon: Why are before guidelines are Needs Improvement: A Usefulness of Findings we losing our precious available using systematic Systematic Review in Medical Research blood donors? A systematic multi-expert process (C4) Seon-Young Lee: Anna Brown: CEBIS: Bringing review from Pakistan. Compliance of Systematic research knowledge to the Moira Godbert-Laird: Reviews in Plastic Surgery clinician and patient to inform Syndication of NICE content With the PRISMA Statement: evidence based practice Pierre La Rochelle: A Systematic Review Tammy Hoffmann: Are Quantifying the Drug Safety Charmilie Chandrakumar: patients naively optimistic Evidence Deficit: Analysis The Use of Study Registration about health care? A of the Drugs Withdrawn and Protocols in Plastic systematic review of from the United States SEE PAGE 10 FOR Surgery Research: expectations of the benefits Market from 1976 to 2010 KEY AND EVENT A systematic review and harms of treatments, for Safety Reasons LOCATIONS Sonia Ratib: Is there an tests, and screens Ameneh Safarzadeh: association between study Alison Ford & Alan Lovell: Intra Uterine Fetal Death And size and study quality in Reaching the patient: how Some Related Factors: A Silent dermatological clinical trials? the NIHR Dissemination Tragedy In Southeastern Iran A meta-epidemiological Centre uses the views of Dylan Collins: Global review patients and carers cardiovascular risk Frances Gardner: Enhancing Arlene McCurtin: Fostering assessment in the primary power and transparency and evidence diversity in prevention of reducing bias through data decision aid design: cardiovascular pooling: Individual Participant philosophy and process disease: overview of Data (IPD) meta-analysis for systematic reviews. investigating equity effects of parenting interventions 4 PROGRAMME • For the latest updates go to: evidencelive.org 13:15 Lunch 14:00 Improving the Quality of Transforming Translating Evidence into Workshops Research Evidence (L2) Communication of Better-Quality Health Evidence for Better Services (L5) Health (L3) Paul Brand: Systematic Claudia Dobler: Communicating Tara Lamont: What does the Dr Clive Adams: Cochrane review of effectiveness of risks and benefits of preventive research say? Developing a Reviews: what works and what immunotherapy for pediatric tuberculosis treatment: themed review of evidence doesn’t for dissemination (C2) asthma: the importance of Australian physicians’ on end of life care for NHS applicability of research perspectives decision-makers evidence Fran Toye: Using research Valerie King: Evidence review Sally Hopewell: Impact based films for effective methods to support evidence- of a web-based tool dissemination of qualitative based coverage decisions and Panel: Improving the (WebCONSORT) to improve systematic review – an example the goldilocks principle: too Evidence for Systematic the reporting of randomised of a film used in post-graduate big, too small, just right? Reviews (L1) trials: results of a randomised clinical training Jolita Bekhof: Practice for controlled trial Rob Cook: NIHR Signals: sensible care: effects of Kamal Mahtani Heidi Gardner: Collaborating A system for disseminating 8-years evidence based (Session Chair) to combat the inefficiency of important, trustworthy, relevant practice Jon Brassey randomised trials research for decision makers in Tao-Hsin Tung: The effects Tom Jefferson Paola Rosati: A new scoring the NHS of aromatherapy massage Gerald Gartlehner method highlights major Joanne Jordan: Evidence on improvement of anxiety discrepancies between what Flowers: Improving accessibility among patients receiving Lars Hemkens clinical trial registries report and engagement with evidence palliative care: A systematic and paediatric randomised based guidance review of randomised controlled trials publish Sarah Chapman: Evidence for controlled trials Jane Lloyd: Biases that Everyday: getting evidence into Niamh O’Rourke: affect the quality of research people’s hands through social Development of standards for evidence for improving media clinical practice guidance in organisational health literacy Jean Ryan: Investigation of the Ireland influence of patient decision Kay Stevenson: Implementing aids on knowledge and and evaluating an electronic informed decision-making: a solution to support general systematic review and content practice for patients with low analysis back pain 15:30 Tea and coffee break 16:00 Keynote Session (L1) Transforming the Communication of Evidence for Better Health Ben Goldacre (Session Chair), David Spiegelhalter, Julia Belluz, Victor Montori 17:15 Open Meeting: Prioritising and Exploring the Potential Solutions to Better Evidence for Better Decisions (L1) 18:15 Fringe: Meet Future Leaders Networking Event (Gibson Building) 18:30 Drinks Reception (St Lukes Chapel & Radcliffe Primary Care Atrium) FB/EvidenceLive @EvidenceLive #EvidenceLive 5 08:00 Registration Open 08:00 Breakfast Session: (L2) Breakfast Session: (L3) Better Value Healthcare Promoting Critical Thinking about Treatment Claims Muir Gray Andy Oxman, Douglas Badenoch, Iain Chalmers, Paul Glasziou 09:30 Disentangling the Equipping Future Translating Evidence into Workshops Problems of Too Much and Teachers, Developers and Better-Quality Health Too Little Medicine (L1) Leaders of Evidence-based Services (L3) Healthcare (L2) Nicola Lindson-Hawley: The Guylene Theriault: EBMPICO : Laila J. Badran: The first Ms Sian Jones & Ms Alison Cochrane Tobacco Addiction a web-based tool for teaching pioneer two studies which Turner: The good, the bad and Group at 20: ensuring our all 4 steps of EBM created the basic evidences the evidence: the challenges evidence is relevant David Allen: Impact of a behind the need for the of decision making in health Benjamin Djulbegovic: community based evidence reform of the Jordanian service commissioning (C2) Reducing overtreatment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 How to Make Experimental Economics
    This article is © Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/32996). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited. How to Make Experimental Economics Research More Reproducible: Lessons from Other Disciplines and a New Proposal1 Zacharias Maniadis, University of Southampton Fabio Tufano, University of Nottingham John A. List University of Chicago2 Abstract: Efforts in the spirit of this special issue aim at improving the reproducibility of experimental economics, in response to the recent discussions regarding the “research reproducibility crisis.” We put this endeavour in perspective by summarizing the main ways (to our knowledge) that have been proposed – by researchers from several disciplines – to alleviate the problem. We discuss the scope for economic theory to contribute to evaluating the proposals. We argue that a potential key impediment to replication is the expectation of negative reactions by the authors of the individual study, and suggest that incentives for having one’s work replicated should increase. JEL Codes: B40, C90 Keywords: False-Positives, Reproducibility, Replication Introduction Nearly a century ago Ronald Fisher began laying the groundwork of experimental practice, which remains today. Fisher’s work was highlighted by the experimental tripod: the concepts of replication, blocking, and randomization were the foundation on which the analysis of the experiment was based. The current volume of Research in Experimental Economics (REE for short) aims at helping experimental economists think more deeply about replication, which has attracted the attention of scholars in other disciplines for some time.
    [Show full text]
  • (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
    Policy and practice The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies* Erik von Elm,a Douglas G Altman,b Matthias Egger,a,c Stuart J Pocock,d Peter C Gøtzsche e & Jan P Vandenbroucke f for the STROBE Initiative Abstract Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Information Associates
    Drug Information Associates BRIEF: INFORMATION SERVICES IN AN ERA OF the use of new, expensive therapies (such as specialty UNPRECEDENTED EVIDENCE EXPANSION drugs, for example) be justified when compared to Heath Ford, PharmD, PhD | May 23, 2020 established practice?” In education, “can learners in certain outcome segments be expected to show Have you ever wondered … how effective is the statin improvement given new programs and substantial drug your doctor prescribed? Or the anti-depressant, increases in investment?” And in manufacturing, “are antipsychotic, or amphetamine? What about the recommended process improvements reasonable given expensive injectable medication your discount card or projected output expectations and investment costs?” drug coupon allows you to get every month for a low copay? And what about medical education (eg, medicine, These considerations validate the need for specialized nursing, pharmacy, dentistry)? Have you ever considered information services, specifically those centering on both the differences between your educational experience and retrieving and appraising scientific evidence. that of today’s professional students? How effective Information Retrieval & Appraisal Services in Medicine were educational strategies then compared to those employed today? In light of the extraordinary growth of the scientific literature, it is said that perhaps no industry is in greater The “Evidence Base” need of specialized information services than medicine. In all industries, especially medicine, the growing level of According to estimates, approximately 2.5 million experimentation and the pervasive expectation for an scientific journal manuscripts were published in 2009 in “evidence base” is very well established. Municipalities more than 29,000 journals.1 Between 1994 and 2001, and not-for-profit organizations, for instance, search for approximately 400,000 medical manuscripts were evidence-based interventions that address problems of published per year (on average),2 making medicine the homelessness, food insecurity, or public health.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Mccartney: the Social Care System Has Become Inherently Unsafe
    BMJ 2017;357:j2329 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2329 (Published 2017 May 30) Page 1 of 2 Views and Reviews BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.j2329 on 30 May 2017. Downloaded from VIEWS AND REVIEWS NO HOLDS BARRED Margaret McCartney: The social care system has become inherently unsafe Margaret McCartney general practitioner Glasgow Ellen Ash was an elderly woman with severe dementia, who with many time consuming assessments. The community team lived in Glasgow. She died in 2013 after she was smothered is dissolving, and our district nurses no longer work, long term, and her house was set on fire. Her son, Jeffrey, went to the police from the practice as part of our team but “horizontally,” across the next day to confess to both.1 He was her carer and seems to many. have been under immense stress. This may be “agile,” but it loses the longer term, soft knowledge Social care is under intense pressure but also scrutiny. Over the on which harder decisions are based. No basic record exists past few months this complex case has been discussed at wide between district nurses and GPs, social work, and care agencies http://www.bmj.com/ ranging, interdisciplinary meetings involving health and social to say who’s involved. I can alert social workers to concerns, care staff. In Scotland, social and health care are integrated in but what then? Everyone is working over capacity, in workplaces law. But in practice? not designed to ensure that professionals have the minimum In the months before her death Ash was admitted to hospital information to do the job safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19: People Are Not Being Warned About Pitfalls of Mass Testing
    NEWS BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n238 on 26 January 2021. Downloaded from The BMJ EXCLUSIVE Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n238 Published: 26 January 2021 Covid-19: People are not being warned about pitfalls of mass testing Elisabeth Mahase Only a third of local authorities that are rolling out local authorities in communicating such public health lateral flow testing have made the test’s limitations messages. clear to the public—including that it does not pick However, Mike Gill, former regional director of public up all cases and that people testing negative could health for the South East region, highlighted that the still be infected, an investigation by The BMJ has government’s community testing guidance4 for local found. authorities did not make the limitations clear. A search of the websites of the 114 local authorities He said, “It is absolutely appropriate that local rolling out lateral flow testing1 found that 81 provided authorities shape the messaging surrounding testing information for the public on rapid covid-19 testing. to suit local circumstances and cultural groups, but Of these, nearly half (47%; 38) did not explain the all messaging should fulfil basic minimum standards. limitations of the tests or make it clear that people needed to continue following the restrictions or safety “Unfortunately, this range of approaches across the measures even if they tested negative, as they could country is predictable. The recently published still be infected. government guide to community testing,4 for all its length, is entirely silent on the issue of standards of Although 53% (43) did advise people to continue to messaging.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm and the British Medical Journal
    Joint meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm and the British Medical Journal Venue and time 10:00am, Friday 21st May 2021 Via Zoom virtual conferencing Parliamentarians attending • Baroness Cumberlege, Co-Chair • Emma Hardy MP, Vice-Chair Panellists • Fiona Godlee, Editor-In-Chief, British Medical Journal • Kath Sansom, Sling the Mesh • Margaret McCartney, general practitioner, writer and broadcaster • Professor Neil Mortensen, President, Royal College of Surgeons • Professor Colin Melville, Medical Director and Director of Education and Standards, General Medical Council • Sir Cyril Chantler, Vice-Chair of the IMMDS Review Additional guests • Simon Whale, panel member, IMMDS Review • Dr Sonia Macleod, senior researcher to the IMMDS Review • Dr Chris van Tulleken, Infectious disease doctor, broadcaster and academic • Rebecca Coombes, Head of Journalism, British Medical Journal Apologies • The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Co-Chair • Cat Smith MP, Vice-Chair • Dr Valerie Brasse, Secretary to the IMMDS Review Introduction Baroness Cumberlege began by welcoming fellow parliamentarians, patient group campaigners, her fellow panellists, members of the media and other attendees to the launch event. She also introduced the team from the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, who were on-screen: 1 • Sir Cyril Chantler • Simon Whale • Dr Sonia Macleod Baroness Cumberlege provided attendees with background to the joint meeting, referencing the work of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which she Chaired, and which published its report, First Do No Harm, last July. The report stated that transparency of payments made to clinicals needs to improve and it recommended (Recommendation 8) that the register of the General Medical Council should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors, as well a specialisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Charges for Scoring Systems May Change Practice
    PERSONAL VIEW Charges for scoring systems may change practice Much medical knowledge is copyrighted, but charges to reproduce clinical scoring criteria such as the Mini Mental State Examination may see them disappear from guidelines, writes Hugo Farne small but important change is number of titles—when previously the bulk quietly taking place in academic of article citations were accounted for by publishing, to the detriment of a few papers in the top journals10—and authors and readers alike. falling library budgets have been met with The National Institute rises in subscription charges in excess of Afor Health and Care Excellence (NICE) inflation (the “serials crisis”).11 Aggressively recommends using the Wells score to assess pursuing publishers who quote their content, patients with a suspected pulmonary particularly scoring systems that are often embolus, for example, and it recommends reproduced, can provide additional revenues the CHA2DS2-VASc score to identify which for journals. patients with atrial fibrillation are at high risk of stroke and should start prophylactic Intellectual property anticoagulation. However, if you wish It is only right that journals should seek to publish an article, book, smartphone to protect the intellectual property of their application, or website that reminds readers authors against plagiarism. However, scoring of these scoring systems, it will cost you systems were intended to be used as widely dearly—as much as $750 (£486; €690) goes as possible. By charging such high fees, these to the Annals of Internal Medicine for the Royalties for reproduction: room for improvement scoring systems will inevitably be less widely Wells score and $360 to the journal Chest read and used, much as articles incurring a for the CHA2DS2-VASc score (see table).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Evidence Matters to Dr Mark Porter
    HEALTHWATCH NEWSLETTER Issue 100, Winter 2015-16 Contents NEWS Dr Mark Porter’s AGM talk; student prizewinners; homeopathic prescription ban news; and News in Brief ...............................................................................................................................................................full text 1-4 HEALTHWATCH AGM 2015 James May sums up our busiest year so far ..................................................full text 4-5 JOHN MADDOX AWARD Why Edzard Ernst was a perfect fit for “standing up for science” award, by Nick Ross ..................................................................................................................................................................intro only 6 PHARMACEUTICALS Leonore Tiefer tells the story of the hunt for the pink Viagra ...................................intro only 6 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Margaret McCartney responds to Nick Ross on confidentiality; Frank Odds on mixing religion with evidence ..........................................................................................................................intro only 7 MEETING REPORT Michael Baum pays a memorable visit to our counterparts in the Netherlandsintro ......... only 8 to read the newsletter in full, join HealthWatch HERE NEWS FEATURE Why evidence matters to Dr Mark Porter The 23rd HealthWatch Award was presented to Dr Mark Porter MBE; GP, journalist, media doctor and presenter of BBC Radio 4’s ‘Inside Health’. Receiving his award at the Medical Society of London, Dr Porter gave an insight into his unique career, and explained that his listeners, readers, and patients are why evidence matters. “For me, it’s not about the data, but how it influences clinical practice—what difference is made to the man or woman sitting in front of me in my consulting room. Like most, I was a naïve young doctor who did what his boss told him, whose boss did what his boss told him because it was what his boss did, and that’s how we based a lot of our practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Gps to Convene Crisis Summit
    this week GPs to convene crisis summit The chair of the BMA’s General sustainability is in serious question, and Chaand Nagpaul said the Practitioners Committee has warned the the ability of GPs to continue with their current crisis in general government that the future sustainability current workload and current pressures practice “can no longer be ignored by politicians” of UK general practice is “in serious is unsustainable. This conference has question,” ahead of a crisis summit later been called because we are in a desperate this month. situation with regards to general practice.” Chaand Nagpaul said that the first Nagpaul added, “The conference is special meeting of local medical bringing to the fore an issue that can no committees (the statutory bodies that longer be ignored by politicians. But it represent GPs locally) in 13 years—due is also about ensuring clear action is to take place on 30 January—highlighted taken to enable general practice to get the severity of the current crisis in general back on its feet.” practice and would bring to the fore “an Peter Holden, a member of issue that can no longer be ignored by Derbyshire Local Medical Committee politicians.” and a former negotiator on the BMA The meeting has been organised by General Practitioners Committee, NEWS ONLINE the BMA in response to growing concern has proposed a motion warning the Wider group of among members of local medical government that industrial action • health professionals committees that rising demand from from GPs was “on the cards” unless should be located patients, stretched resources, and over- the government acted to support the in emergency regulation were harming the care of beleaguered primary care system.
    [Show full text]
  • John P.A. Ioannidis | Stanford Medicine Profiles
    06/01/2021 John P.A. Ioannidis | Stanford Medicine Profiles CAP Profiles John P.A. Ioannidis PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE (STANFORD PREVENTION RESEARCH), OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND POPULATION HEALTH AND BY COURTESY, OF STATISTICS AND OF BIOMEDICAL DATA SCIENCE Medicine - Stanford Prevention Research Center PRINT PROFILE EMAIL PROFILE Profile Tabs Menu Bio C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics; co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). Born in New York City in 1965 and raised in Athens, Greece. Valedictorian (1984) at Athens College; National Award of the Greek Mathematical Society (1984); MD (top rank of medical school class) from the National University of Athens in 1990; also received DSc in biopathology from the same institution. Trained at Harvard and Tus (internal medicine and infectious diseases), then held positions at NIH, Johns Hopkins and Tus. Chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School in 1999-2010 while also holding adjunct professor positions at Harvard, Tus, and Imperial College. Senior Advisor on Knowledge Integration at NCI/NIH (2012-6). Served as President, Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, and editorial board member of many leading journals (including PLoS Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JNCI among others) and as Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010-2019). Delivered ~600 invited and honorary lectures. Recipient of many awards (e.g. European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science [2007], Medal for Distinguished Service, Teachers College, Columbia University [2015], Chanchlani Global Health Award [2017], Epiphany Science Courage Award [2018], Einstein fellow [2018]).
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: an Exercise in Mega-Silliness?
    Commentary Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Exercise in Mega-silliness? MATTHEW J. PAGE∗,† and DAVID MOHER‡,§ ∗School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; †School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol; ‡Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; §School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa n 1978, the distinguished professor of psychology Hans Eysenck delivered a scathing critique of what was then a new I method, that of meta-analysis, which he described as “an exer- cise in mega-silliness.” A provocative article by John Ioannidis in this issue of the journal1 suggests that “mega-silliness” may be an appro- priate characterization of what the meta-analysis literature has become. With surveys of the PubMed database and other empirical evaluations, Ioannidis paints a disturbing picture of the current state of affairs, where researchers are producing, in epidemic proportions, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that are redundant, misleading, or serving vested interests. Ioannidis presents an astounding case of 21 different meta-analyses of statins for atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery published within a period of 7 years, with some of these having practically identical results.1 Moreover, his findings are in line with our recent cross-sectional study of systematic reviews of biomedical research.2 We identified 682 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in a single month (February 2014), which is equivalent to 22 reviews published per day. The majority of reviews did not consider study risk of biases or other reporting biases when drawing conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • “A Formidable Share of the Research We Pay for Is Simply Wrong.” by JON KÅRE TIME, Appeared in MORGENBLADET, No
    “A formidable share of the research we pay for is simply wrong.” By JON KÅRE TIME, appeared in MORGENBLADET, No. 22/8–14 June 2018 Translated from the Norwegian by Heidi Sommerstad Ødegård, AMESTO/Semantix Translations Norway AS, Torture of data, perverse reward systems, declining morals and false findings: Science is in crisis argues statistician Andrea Saltelli. “There’s been a lot of data torturing with this cool dataset,” wrote Cornell University food scientist Brian Wansink in a message to a colleague. Wansink was famous, and his research was popular. It showed, among other things, how to lose weight without much effort. All anyone needed to do was make small changes to their habits and environment. We eat less if we put the cereal boxes in the cabinet instead of having it out on the counter. But after an in-depth investigation by Buzzfeed earlier this year, Wansink has fallen from grace as a social science star to a textbook example of what respectable scientists do not do. “Data torturing” is also referred to as “p-hacking” – the slicing and dicing of a dataset until you find a statistical context that is strong and exciting enough to publish. As Wansink himself formulated it in one of the uncovered emails, you can “tweak” the dataset to find what you want. “Think about all the different ways you can cut the data,” he wrote to a new grad student about to join his lab. It’s a crisis! “Is science in crisis? Well, it was perhaps debatable a few years ago, but now?” Andrea Saltelli seems almost ready to throw up his hands in despair at the question.
    [Show full text]