Tag: research bias
Regulators Are Approving Drugs Without Clear Evidence That They Work
Drug regulators frequently approve drugs despite contradictory clinical trial results and without evidence of clinical benefits.
Withdrawal Symptoms Cloud Findings of Antidepressant “Relapse” Trial
Leading researchers point out that a new antidepressant study in NEJM failed to account for withdrawal symptoms, casting doubt on the results.
“Relapse” in Antidepressant Trials Likely Caused by Sudden Withdrawal
A new study investigates how antidepressant withdrawal effects often get confounded with depression relapse in clinical trials.
Sudden Antipsychotic Withdrawal—Not Low Dose—Leads to Relapse
A new article in Lancet Psychiatry debunks past studies claiming that those on low doses of antipsychotics are more likely to relapse.
How Do We Know When a Treatment Works? A Primer on...
Discussing informed consent, risk/benefit ratios, and the many sources of bias in clinical trials for drugs, in order to help the layperson better understand the research.
CAUTION: Spin Ahead! There is No Evidence That Psychostimulants Reduce the...
Debunking a recent study on ADHD and COVID-19: It suffers from a series of manipulations and spins that are inappropriate in scientific research that aspires to objectivity and that aims to reveal truths.
Multiple Researchers Examining the Same Data Find Very Different Results
A new study demonstrates how the choice of statistical techniques when examining data plays a large role in scientific outcomes.
Sociologists Interrogate Neurobiological Explanations in Criminology
A discourse analysis conducted by sociologists finds problematic assumptions and practices in the field of neurocriminology.
Scientists Call for Increased Transparency in Research
Scientists at the Yale Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT) published a new policy paper this month criticizing the current state of biomedical research and calling for improved transparency in research methods.
Bias and Deception in Behavioral Research
Contrary to popular belief, science is not immune to the corrupting influences of the society it operates in. When false results produced by p-hacked research have social, scientific, and political importance, and affect or harm the lives of millions of people while entire fields look on, it constitutes a scientific scandal.
“Evolutionary Forces Are Causing a Boom in Bad Science”
From the New Scientist: “Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath at the University of California Davis used an evolutionary theory-based computational model to analyse the problem of bad...
JAMA Review Questions Use of Ritalin for ‘ADHD’
In December, MIA reported on a systematic Cochrane review on the research for the safety and effectiveness of Ritalin (methylphenidate) that found substantial bias...
“Science Needs to Evolve”
The Watchdogs cover a new paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science.” The researchers write that “some of the most powerful incentives in...
Highly Cited JAMA Psych Paper Retracted for “Pervasive Errors”
A study, comparing the effects of antidepressants combined with psychotherapy for severe depression to antidepressants alone, has been retracted and replaced by JAMA Psychiatry....
“Big Science is Broken”
For The Week, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry comments on the current state of Science: the replicability crisis, the failure to self-correct, outright fraud, the inadequacy of...
William A. Wilson presents shocking evidence that a lot of published research is false and that science’s self-correcting mechanisms are broken. “There is no...
“Psychologists Throw Open The ‘File Drawer’”
“The ‘file drawer problem’ refers to the fact that in science, many results remain unpublished – especially negative ones,” Neuroskeptic reports. A new paper...
“Why Science Needs to Publish Negative Results”
Emma Granqvist is leading the push for open access journals, like New Negatives in Plant Science, which are platforms for negative, unexpected or controversial results in...
The Onion: “‘Seek Funding’ Step Added To Scientific Method”
"After making an observation and forming a hypothesis as usual, the new third step of the scientific method will now require researchers to embark upon an exhaustive search for corporate or government financing,” the satirical news site the Onion “reports.” “Next, scientists simply modify their study’s goals to align with the vision of potential funders and wait for several months to hear back. At this point—should this step be successful, of course—they can move on to the experimental stage, and then to analysis.”
Massive Number of Antidepressant Meta-Analyses Biased By Industry
A massive number of meta-analyses of antidepressant clinical trials have financial conflicts of interest and are unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, according to a review to be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Researchers also found that meta-analyses with industry ties almost never report any negative findings in their abstracts.