Comments on: Striking new scientific study shows strikingly that scientific studies with striking results are often false

By: Neuron

Neuron — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:20:00 +0000

We physicians rarely take interest in any one published study for this reason, unless it’s a study with a very large number of enrolled patients and we’ve been awaiting it specifically.

By: Dan Hibiki

Dan Hibiki — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:54:00 +0000

Initial results of studies are skewed to make the drug seem preferable not the other way round. You have to wait till impartial studies reveal the true efficiencies of the drug or a more scrumptious review of the initial data.

By: Festus

Festus — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:02:00 +0000

There are surely exceptions. One is the case of imatinib, aka Gleevec, used for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, which was so dramatically successful compared to the controls that the US trials were ended early and all patients were placed on the drug. I’m grateful, as my wife is one of those who benefited.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000345/

By: boyband6666

boyband6666 — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:09:00 +0000

The headline you have for this story is wrong. The results aren’t false, and it then continue the ‘big companies, therefore conspiracies’ general theme a lot of people here subscribe to. A better highline might emphasize that strong results are the work of chance.

Which isn’t that surprising, a p value of 0.05 as used in medicine means a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong. Think of how many trials there are, and you get a lot of those. Also all the drugs that “didn’t work”, well a lot of those probably did, but got a bad draw.Reading the LA times it gives a balanced view – the strongly positive results are often the result of a small sample size, or few/large number of events. Just are the strongly negative ones. The larger studies find it is probably somewhere in the middle (but still limtied by sample size, ‘true’ effect could be larger, or smaller). Meta analysis is an attempt to find this ‘true’ effect from all of the studies.

By: OoerictoO

OoerictoO — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:13:00 +0000

avastin is currently used by some to treat some brain cancers (glioblastoma being one) as a second line treatment, upon progression after first line radio-chemo treatments, inevitably don’t do much.
the glioblastoma multiforme wikipedia page has some more details.

By: jmcq

jmcq — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:37:00 +0000

Might the reverse also be the case, that if results are too bad to be true they probably aren’t? Of course there are probably very few follow-up studies when results are bad…. ah, the age of science, ya gotta love it.

By: Halloween_Jack

Halloween_Jack — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:12:00 +0000

Damnit, there goes my “don’t trust your life to a medicine named on Talk Like a Pirate Day” joke.

By: DevinC

DevinC — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:45:00 +0000

For the layman, there was an explanation of the ‘striking new study shows striking new studies probably false’ published recently, which explains everything pretty clearly. I can’t remember the name of the journal, though, but it was that journal that lists all journals that don’t contain references to themselves.

EDIT: Found the journal, but the title’s covered by a curry stain. Sorry.

By: TheOven

TheOven — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:18:00 +0000

I was going to read this article but it’s probably false.

By: Dan Hibiki

Dan Hibiki — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:04:00 +0000

Did the further studies show that the efficacy of Avastin is ARRRguable?

…I’ll see myself out.