Perhaps you stumble onto an intriguing study that you haven’t seen covered and want to report on it. Or you receive a press release touting provocative findings that sound pretty astonishing … if they’re true. One potential indication of the paper’s significance and quality is the journal in which it was published.
Publication in a highly regarded journal is not a guarantee in itself that the paper is good – the blog Retraction Watch has hundreds of examples of that. In fact, one of the most famously retracted studies of all time – that of Andrew Wakefield’s attempt to link autism and vaccines in a small cases series – was published in The Lancet, one of the top medical journals in the U.K. (Ironically, that study continues to contribute to The Lancet’s impact factor because it’s the second-most-cited retracted paper as ranked by Retraction Watch.) Continue reading
Lots of challenges have faced medical publishing as the Internet has evolved. From predatory journals to the rise of open access journals to the simple fact that the stacks and stacks of physical paper journals are depleting, removing a long-time key funding source.
In one recent article – ironically enough in the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes – Harlan M. Krumholz, M.D., describes nine “deficiencies in the current model that fuel the sense that journals as we have known them are approaching their final act.” Continue reading
A game of inside baseball is being played between two of the most venerated medical journals, and journalists may want to be sure they have a seat near the dugout. The game centers on one of the most important aspects of reporting on medical studies: identifying and making sense of researchers’ potential financial conflicts of interest.
In nearly every medical study, usually somewhere near the end or on the bottom of the first page, the authors declare any conflicts of interest or disclosures they may have that relate to the topic of the study. For editorials and commentaries, authors include the same, though many high-impact journals do not publish review articles and similar viewpoint-based papers by authors who have real or perceived conflicts of interest. Continue reading
A $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation will be used to create a database of retractions from scientific journals, extending the work done by Adam Marcus and AHCJ Vice President Ivan Oransky on their Retraction Watch blog.
The grant was awarded to the Center for Scientific Integrity, a nonprofit organization set up by Marcus and Oransky. Continue reading
Reporters who cover medical studies often take great care not to be fooled by the spin put on research by drug companies, universities and even government agencies.
But sometimes the spin is the study itself, and that’s a serious problem. It’s a big story that’s hiding in plain sight, to borrow a phrase Steven Brill likes to use.
By some estimates, half of clinical trials are unpublished. Half. And because positive studies are far more likely to be published than negative studies – a phenomenon called publication bias – the studies that don’t get published often throw some seriously cold water on how good a treatment looks.
If this research hasn’t been published, how do we know it exists? Some of these trials have been released because of lawsuits; others can be found in standardized documents called clinical study reports that drug companies file with the FDA and its counterpart, the European Medicines Agency. Regulatory agencies use them for their reviews, but because they’re never published in medical journals, they remain hidden to the medical community and general public.
For a case in point, consider the antidepressant reboxetine. Unpublished studies that were brought to light in a stunning 2010 meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal showed that Pfizer had failed to publish data – all of it negative – on 74 percent of patients who had participated in the clinical trials of the medication.
“Not only does the drug not work, it really doesn’t work,” wrote the blogger SciCurious in a guest post for Scientific American on the reboxetine revelations. Continue reading