Tag Archives: myth

Does identification of misconduct in studies affect medical guidelines?

This question has been answered by an earlier study of Avenell et al.

By 2016 the affected trial reports were cited in 1158 publications, including 68 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, guidelines and clinical trials. We judged that 13 guidelines, systematic or other reviews would likely change their findings if the affected trial reports were removed, and in another eight it was unclear if findings would change. By 2018, only one of the 68 citing publications, a systematic review, appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction.
We found evidence that this group of affected trial reports distorted the evidence base. Correction of these distortions is slow, uncoordinated and inconsistent. Unless there is a rapid, systematic, coordinated approach by bibliographic databases, authors, journals and publishers to mitigate the impact of known cases of research misconduct, patients, other researchers and their funders may continue to be adversely affected.

Intellektuelle Zerstörer

“Auf den ersten Blick scheint er [der Intellektuelle] ein Zerstörer, man sieht ihn, einem Metzger vergleichbar, stets die Hände voll von Eingeweiden der Dinge. Aber das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Der Intellektuelle kann nicht, auch wenn er es wollte, im Hinblick auf die Dinge Egoist sein. Er macht aus ihnen ein Problem. Das ist das höchste Kennzeichen der Liebe.” (Der Intellektuelle und der Andere, 1940)

zitiert nach der “der Freitag