Research: Third of study results don't hold up

  1. Board Supporter
    foo.c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    44
    Posts
    116
    Rep Power
    189
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    80.15%

    Research: Third of study results don't hold up



  2. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85.1%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Good find. I figured this to be true about studies, since there are already so many contradicting ones out there, makes you think that many that seem to be straight forward may be proven wrong in the future.
  3. Registered User
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    964
    Rep Power
    598
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    68.42%

    irony, a research study on research studies, claiming 1/3 of research studies, aren't true.

    say that 5 times.
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    the thing is that most people read a research study and take it for the gospel but you have to look at the overall creditability for naturalistic studies (case studies) or validity of empirical studies.... and most people until they are shown how to do it... think WOW this is great, especially if it confirms a notion that they already hold close to them. THE PRESS are the world's worst for doing this..
  5. Elite Member
    jmh80's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    8,110
    Rep Power
    9663
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    88.54%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    What is it my intro chemical engineering prof. used to say? There are only theories. They can only be disproved.
  6. Board Supporter
    TheUsual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    559
    Rep Power
    503
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    21.32%

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer
    irony, a research study on research studies, claiming 1/3 of research studies, aren't true.
    lol how true. So according to them, there is a 1/3 chance that the fraction they determined, 1/3, is incorrect.
  7. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.4%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Cool find, but nothing new. In any body of research you're going to find the majority of research indicates one thing, but there are always studies that either don't confirm that one thing or completely contradict it. People don't understand science is a process. Over time the more info you get the more solid certain things become. The news media are big into this mistake, but I already figured them a long time ago to be a bunch of idiots. What pisses me off is when doctors can't understand the process. Medicine is a practice, but it's supposed to be heavily based on science and a lot of doctors tend to take the one study view of things. That pisses me off more than a layman not getting it right off the bat.

    I can't tell you how many times I've argued the safety of steroid usage with people who are or claim to be doctors, or in the medical field in some capacity, and think that steroids are lethal because one case study from the seventies showed a possibility of liver damage after prolonged use, or some similar claim. There's also a tendency for reinforcement. People believe studies that confirm preconceived notions and dismiss studies that contradict them, regardless of which study is more sound or where the general trend of research points. A recent example that sort of fits into this is that doctor featured in the Real Sports episode piece on steroids, the one who argues they are unsafe. He claims long term studies on steroid use would be too dangerous to undertake, but then he's also cited studies in front of congress showing increased usage among kids that are based on self reporting. Somehow the same type of study done on existing steroid users wouldn't add anything of value to the body of research on these substances. Probably because he knows damn well such a study wouldn't swing the trend of research where he'd want it to go.

    That kind of study while inherently biased would most likely show a dearth of the type of long term health problems people like him have been claiming exist for years. Ergo, don't do it, and especially don't do it under even more controlled conditions by administering doses and monitoring subjects where the results would be even more relevant. If that happened and no one died at the end of the study or showed any signs of long term health problems, the same media follies would leave steroid prohibitionists with their dicks swinging in the wind trying to justify years of fining and imprisoning people.
  8. Banned
    arlowf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    28
    Posts
    56
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    92.86%

    Way O/T, but...
    TheUsual, what is up with that guy in your avatar... Is that you? You seem, um, bloated...Yet you have abs, kind of like Ronnie in his less flattering pictures... <---arlowf gets his ass kicked.
  9. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by jmh80
    What is it my intro chemical engineering prof. used to say? There are only theories. They can only be disproved.
    What he should have said was there are only hypothesises...theories are a tad harder to disprove...
  10. Senior Member
    MarcusG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,223
    Rep Power
    755
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    24.57%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    The problem with medical studies is that drug companies decide which studies to publish if they are done in-house (hence the vioxx debacle). Studies with positive results tend to get picked up by journals. Editors do not want to lose advertising money by publishing too much bad news.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Some in depth info on Green Tea. Lots of studies.
    By ArnoldIsMyIdol in forum Supplements
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 04:01 AM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 04:19 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-24-2009, 03:26 PM
  4. Men needed for exercise research (Univ of Bath)
    By yeahright in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2006, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in