Navigation Link

1215 South Walnut Ave.
Demopolis, AL 36732 map map 

Access to Care: 800.239.2901

Health Policy & Advocacy
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest News
Decline in Antibiotic Use in Livestock Isn't Enough, Critics SayWoman's Selfie of Skin Cancer Went Viral, Sparked AwarenessCan Video Games Hone ER Docs' Skills?Higher Booze Taxes Might Pay Off for Public HealthAre Emergency Medical Workers Ready for a Nuclear Attack?Pediatric Oncologists Willing to Consider Medical MarijuanaHow to Perk Up the Holidays for Hospital PatientsWhat to Do If Someone's Bleeding BadlyAre Good Kidneys Going to Waste?U.S. Gun Sales Rose After Sandy Hook Massacre: StudyCreating Your Family Health TreeLocal Smoke-Free Laws Tied to Fewer Lung Cancer CasesYour Doc Is Away? Substitute Doctors a Safe Option, Study FindsChecking Prices for Medical Procedures Online? Good LuckPatients More Prone to Complain About Younger DoctorsPatients Often Uncomfortable With Overlapping SurgeriesClinician Denial of Patient Requests Impacts SatisfactionPatients React Poorly When Docs Say 'No'Memo to Doctors: Spit Out the Bad NewsDoubts Raised About Use of Products Containing OxybenzoneReport: Industry Hid Decades-Old Study Showing Sugar's Unhealthy EffectsMany Health Care Providers Work While SickMore Patients Are Having a Say in Their Medical CareFDA Seeks to Speed Development of 'Regenerated' Organs for Medical UseHealth Care Experts in Favor of Patient Contribution to NotesMillions Could Miss Out on a Potential Alzheimer's BreakthroughU.S. May Still Benefit From Climate AccordHealth Tip: Spread Awareness of the Opioid EpidemicKnowing Too Much About Your Genes Might Be RiskyHealth Tip: Participating in a Clinical TrialMusic, Video Help Sixth-Graders Master Hands-Only CPRIncreases in U.S. Health Spending Tied to Health Service PriceHealth Tip: Prevent Germs at the Doctor's OfficeInfo Via Social Media Apps May Increase Vaccine AcceptanceIt's 'Buyer Beware' When Purchasing Medical Pot Extract OnlineGetting Self-Driving Cars on the Road Soon Might Save LivesHealth Tip: Defining Health LiteracyDoctor Burnout: A Big Health Threat in U.S.About Half of Americans Get Health Care in ERPricing Interventions Increase Sales, Intake of Healthy FoodsHealth Tip: Get to Know Your PharmacistRobots May Be Cleaning Your Hospital Room SoonCMS Launches Initiative to Examine Impact of RegulationsPatients Prefer Face-to-Face Communication, No ComputerDrop Off Your Unused Meds Saturday on 'Take Back Day'Concerns Surround Use of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic TestingMost Patients Satisfied With Relationship With PhysicianModule Developed to Improve Adult Vaccination RatesA Drug Company's Gift Might Change How Your Doctor PrescribesAlmost 4 in 10 Tanning Salons Flout State Laws
Questions and AnswersVideosLinksBook Reviews
Related Topics

Health Insurance

Does Study Claim a Cure? Beware of Scientific 'Spin'

HealthDay News
by By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter
Updated: Sep 11th 2017

new article illustration

MONDAY, Sept. 11, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- Take with a grain of salt any flashy reports from clinical trials boasting groundbreaking results, a new scientific review warns.

A majority of clinical trials published in medical journals hype their findings, presenting them in a way that makes them look more favorable than they actually are, said senior researcher Lisa Bero.

An evidence review conducted by Bero and her colleagues found more than half of clinical trials "spin" their results either in the abstracts (summaries) or the main text of the published report.

"'Breakthrough' studies are quite rare, so any study making bold claims about [effectiveness] or causality should be viewed skeptically," said Bero, who's chair of medicines use and health outcomes with the University of Sydney in Australia.

"Science is an accumulation of knowledge, so new studies need to be put in the context of others," she added.

Spin or science hype involves different strategies, Bero said. These can include:

  • Claiming that statistically non-significant results actually mean something.
  • Making recommendations for clinical practice that aren't supported by study results.
  • Attributing cause-and-effect relationships that aren't supported by the findings.
  • Selectively reporting only the results that support the desired conclusion.
  • Presenting data in an overly favorable or optimistic light.

A hyped report might "conclude that a new treatment is beneficial when none of the results are statistically significant, or to suggest that a treatment or diagnostic test should be widely used based on the findings of a single, small study," Bero said.

To see how deeply such hype has infiltrated medical literature, Bero and her team reviewed 35 academic studies that individually attempted to assess spin in different fields of research.

Overall, the studies found that around 56 percent of clinical trials tended to hype their results. The presence of spin ranged from about 34 percent of reports from randomized clinical trials -- considered the gold standard of research -- up to 84 percent of papers written about non-randomized trials.

The researchers also found hype in 86 percent of papers on observational studies. These studies do not involve actual experiments, but instead try to discover new information by observing people's everyday lives.

Spin also was present in 26 percent of evidence reviews that attempt to sum up current medical knowledge by analyzing all the existing research, the findings showed.

Annette Flanagin is executive managing editor and vice president of operations for the Journal of the American Medical Association and the JAMA Network of publications. She said that this new analysis "provides more important information on the prevalence of biomedical studies with spin and describes the types of spin that are misleading and potentially deceptive."

Flanagin agreed with the authors of the new report that "editors and peer reviewers should be aware of the prevalence of spin and find ways to identify and remove it from papers before publication."

The spin produced by researchers seems motivated mainly by the desire to get a paper published by a medical journal, Bero said.

"Studies with favorable findings are more likely to get submitted for publication, get attention from other researchers, clinicians, and even the press," Bero said.

Her team found no link between hype in studies and whether they were funded by drug or medical device companies.

Readers can protect themselves against hyperbole by comparing any study's actual results against what the authors claim those results show, Bero noted.

"When reading a scientific paper, focus on the first paragraph of the discussion, which should simply summarize the results," Bero said. "The rest of the discussion may make bolder statements. Beware of adjectives!"

The new analysis was published in the Sept. 11 issue of PLOS Biology.

More information

For tips on reading scientific research papers, visit the American Association for the Advancement of Science.