Research
Studies Are Not Always True
Often times in my office I have patients who come in who state that they have recently read or heard of a research study that has been performed which has caused them to have a concern or question regarding their current lifestyle or something that they had been taking previously as a nutritional supplement. An example would be the recent article which has been overly hyped in the news media regarding vitamin-E. Many cardiologists now, due to this one specific article, are recommending that their patients no longer take vitamin-E as an adjunct to their overall treatment protocol to enhance their cardiac function. This is extremely unfortunate. Often times I will inform patients when they tell me about a specific study like this that I can go onto the Internet and within a half an hour I will have five to six articles refuting whatever article it is that they have brought to my attention.
In a
research article published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine,
researchers found that nearly one third of original research results do not
hold up. In other words, the findings
were either inaccurate or were not as originally reported. The study’s author, Dr. John Ioannidis, a
researcher at the
According to Dr. Catherine De’Angelis, the Editor and Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “the crazy part about science and yet the exciting part about science is that you almost never have something that’s black and white.” The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine go on to state that “a single study is not the final word and that is an important message.”
The studies that were refuted through Dr. Ioannidis’ research included drugs and treatments such as hormone pills which once were thought to protect menopausal women from heart disease but later was shown to do the opposite, and vitamin-E studies. Also noted were studies on antibody treatments that originally were thought not to improve survival in certain sepsis patients. A smaller, previous study found the opposite. Ioannidis goes on to state that “there is no proof that the subsequent studies were necessarily correct,” but he noted that in fourteen cases in which results were contraindicated or softened, the subsequent studies were either larger or better designed. Unfortunately, many studies are done rapidly to prove a point. This is being done more and more today than ever before in the research world.
Also, last month in JAMA was a study contradicting previous thinking about stomach laying helping to improve breathing in children hospitalized with acute lung injuries. The subsequent study found these children did no better than patients laying on their backs. According to Dr. De’Angelis, “the media can complicate matters with misleading or exaggerating headlines about studies. I use as an example the vitamin-E study, but there have been many others in the past which have created a great concern for many patients, only to be subsequently proven to be invalid or not totally true.
Dr. Ioannidis said, “Scientists and editors should avoid giving selective attention only to the most promising or exciting results, and should make the public more aware of the limitations of science.” He goes on to state, “the general public should not panic” regarding studies that have been disproved. He goes on to state, “we all need to start thinking more critically.”
I think this is very important for all of us to realize that we must be cautious regarding “research” which is being done rapidly and exposed to the public. This can create a general public distrust or concern for specific item or issue. Research should be to elucidate facts, not performed specifically to prove or disprove anything, especially when the outcomes creates a financial benefit for the individuals performing the research.