Format:
Websites,
Language/s:
English,
Resource Link: Visit the Website
Target Audience:
Self-directed learning |
Short Description:
Ben Goldacre: why it’s important to consider vested interests when judging research, but not to dismiss research by people you don’t like.
Key Concepts addressed:
Details
Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 6 March 2010
If the media were actuarial about drawing our attention to the causes of avoidable death, your newspapers would be filled with diarrhoea, AIDS, and cigarettes every day. In reality we know this is an absurd idea. For those interested in the scale of our fascination with rarity, one piece of research looked at a 3 month period in 2002 and found that 8,571 people had to die from smoking to generate one story on the subject from the BBC, while there were 3 stories for every death from vCJD.
So you’ve probably heard that smoking might prevent Alzheimer’s. It comes up in the papers, sometimes to say it’s a true finding, sometimes to say it’s been refuted. Maybe you think it’s a mixed bag, that the research is contradictory, that “experts are divided”. Perhaps you smoke, and joke about how it’ll stop you losing your marbles, at least.
This month, Janine Cataldo and colleagues publish a systematic review on the subject, but with a very interesting twist. First they found all the papers ever published on smoking and Alzheimer’s, using an explicit search strategy which they describe properly in the paper – because they’re scientists, not homeopaths – to make sure that they found all of the evidence, rather than just the studies they already knew about, or the ones which flattered their preconceptions.
Read more…
Browse Key Concepts
Back to Library
GET-IT Jargon Buster
Select a term acceptability
adherence
adverse effect
adverse event
allocation
allocation bias
allocation schedule
allocation schedule concealment
applicability
association
attrition bias
average
average difference
baseline characteristics
before-after study
benefit
bias
blinding
burden
case report
case series
case-control study
causal association
certainty of the evidence
change in cost
cluster
cluster randomized study
cohort study
comparative study
comparing like with like
confidence interval
confidence region
confirmation bias
conflicts of interests
confounders
contamination
controlled before-after study
controlled study
cost
cost-effectiveness
critical assessment
cross-sectional study
crossover study
cut-off value
data collection
data fishing
diagnosis
diagnostic algorithm
diagnostic odds ratio
diagnostic test
diagnostic test accuracy
difference
direct comparison
disease progression bias
disease stage
disease status
double blinding
double dummy
dramatic treatment effect
drug
effect estimate
effectiveness
efficiency
eligibility criteria
enrolment
estimate
evidence
evidence profile
evidence to decision framework
explanatory trial
exploratory analysis
extrapolated evidence
factorial study
fair comparisons of treatments
false negative test result
false negative test result (duplicate)
false positive test result
false positive test result (duplicate)
follow-up
forest plot
GRADE
guideline
high certainty of the evidence
important
imprecision
incidence
inconsistency
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
indeterminate diagnostic test result
index test
indicator
indirect comparison
indirectness
informed consent
intention-to-treat analysis
interim analysis
interrupted time series study
lead-time bias
length-time bias
level of evidence
likelihood
likelihood ratio
loss to follow-up
low certainty of the evidence
low risk of bias
measurement bias
meta-analysis
minimization
moderate certainty of the evidence
modified intention-to-treat analysis
monitoring
multicentre study
multiple statistical comparisons
natural course of health problems
negative predictive value
nocebo effect
non-random allocation
non-randomized study
number needed to harm
number needed to screen
number needed to treat
objective outcome
odds
odds ratio
outcome
outcome measured on a scale
overdiagnosis
overtreatment
p-value
paired study design for diagnostic tests
parallel group study
peer review
performance bias
perspective
phase 1 trial
phase 2 trial
phase 3 trial
phase 4 trial
PICO
placebo
placebo effect
planned analysis
play of chance
positive predictive value
pragmatic trail
pre-test probability
precision
prevalence
primary outcome
prognosis
prognostic variable
protocol or study plan
qualitative study
quality-adjusted life years
quantitative study
random
random allocation
randomized study
reference standard test
regulation of research
relative effect
reliability
repeated measures study
reporting bias
reproducibility
research
research data
research evidence
research methods
research priorities
resource use
risk of bias
risk ratio
sample
sample size
scale
screening
screening test
secondary outcome
selection criteria
sensitivity
shared decision making
single blinding
single participant trial
smallest important difference
specificity
spin
sponsor bias
statistical power
statistically significant
stratified randomization
strength of recommendation
study
study participants
study population
subgroup
subgroup analysis
summary of findings
surrogate outcome
systematic review
target condition
theory
time horizon
treatment
treatment comparison
treatment comparison group
treatment effect
treatment effect
trial phases
triple blinding
true negative test result
true positive test result
type of study
uncertainty
under-reporting
undesirable effect
unfairness
unit of analysis error
utility value
value
variables
very low certainty of the evidence
yes/no outcomes
About GET-IT
GET-IT provides plain language definitions of health research terms