Complete 3 page paper for PSYCH Statistics Course NO PLAGIARISM

BIAS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSISWritten Assignment This assignment contains a very powerful analysis of how bias and statistical manipulation have resulted in flawed medical studies (hint: do not attempt to understand the statistics he presents. Focus on the concepts the author is trying to address). Read the article and write a 3 page report answering the following questions:Write a summary of the article. Indicate your assessment of what the article is about and the major findings of the article.What is the authorâ??s thesis or main point expressed in this article? Why does he believe that most medical research is flawed?How does this article relate to what you have learned in class about experimental research?Before reading this article, what were your beliefs and attitudes toward the quality and accuracy of research studies findings published in professional journals? How has reading this article changed, if at all, your beliefs and attitudes toward published research findings?What does the author believe can be done to improve the quality and objectivity of research? Do you agree or disagree with his recommendations? Explain.FORMAT: 3 pages, 1″ margins, double spaced, normal font. All papers must be neatly typed and proofread.DUE DATE: By the day of the Final ExamGRADING: This writing assignment is worth 30 points. Points will be reduced for spelling, grammar, etc., and for lack of content.
article_analysis.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Complete 3 page paper for PSYCH Statistics Course NO PLAGIARISM
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

MARK W. TENGLER, M.S.
PSYC 2317
BIAS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
Writing Assignment
Following this instruction sheet is a very powerful analysis of how bias and statistical
manipulation have resulted in flawed medical studies. (hint: do not attempt to understand the statistics
he presents. Focus on the concepts the author is trying to address). Read the article and write a 3 page
report answering the following questions:
1. Write an summary of the article. Indicate your assessment of what the article is about
and the major findings of the article.
2. What is the authorâ??s thesis or main point expressed in this article? Why does he believe
that most medical research is flawed?
3. How does this article relate to what you have learned in class about experimental
research?
4. Before reading this article, what were your beliefs and attitudes toward the quality and
accuracy of research study findings published in professional journals? How has reading
this article affected, if at all, your beliefs and attitudes toward published research
findings?
5. What does the author believe can be done to improve the quality and objectivity of
research? Do you agree or disagree with his recommendations? Explain.
FORMAT:
3 pages, 1″ margins, double spaced, normal font. All papers must be neatly
typed and proofread.
DUE DATE:
By the day of the Final Exam
GRADING:
This writing assignment is worth 30 points. Points will be reduced for
spelling, grammar, etc., and for lack of content.
Open access, freely available online
Essay
Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary
There is increasing concern that most
current published research findings are
false. The probability that a research claim
is true may depend on study power and
bias, the number of other studies on the
same question, and, importantly, the ratio
of true to no relationships among the
relationships probed in each scientific
field. In this framework, a research finding
is less likely to be true when the studies
conducted in a field are smaller; when
effect sizes are smaller; when there is a
greater number and lesser preselection
of tested relationships; where there is
greater �exibility in designs, definitions,
outcomes, and analytical modes; when
there is greater financial and other
interest and prejudice; and when more
teams are involved in a scientific field
in chase of statistical significance.
Simulations show that for most study
designs and settings, it is more likely for
a research claim to be false than true.
Moreover, for many current scientific
fields, claimed research findings may
often be simply accurate measures of the
prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the
implications of these problems for the
conduct and interpretation of research.
P
ublished research findings are
sometimes refuted by subsequent
evidence, with ensuing confusion
and disappointment. Refutation and
controversy is seen across the range of
research designs, from clinical trials
and traditional epidemiological studies
[1â??3] to the most modern molecular
research [4,5]. There is increasing
concern that in modern research, false
findings may be the majority or even
the vast majority of published research
claims [6â??8]. However, this should
not be surprising. It can be proven
that most claimed research findings
are false. Here I will examine the key
The Essay section contains opinion pieces on topics
of broad interest to a general medical audience.
PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org
factors that in�uence this problem and
some corollaries thereof.
Modeling the Framework for False
Positive Findings
Several methodologists have
pointed out [9â??11] that the high
rate of nonreplication (lack of
confirmation) of research discoveries
is a consequence of the convenient,
yet ill-founded strategy of claiming
conclusive research findings solely on
the basis of a single study assessed by
formal statistical significance, typically
for a p-value less than 0.05. Research
is not most appropriately represented
and summarized by p-values, but,
unfortunately, there is a widespread
notion that medical research articles
It can be proven that
most claimed research
findings are false.
should be interpreted based only on
p-values. Research findings are defined
here as any relationship reaching
formal statistical significance, e.g.,
effective interventions, informative
predictors, risk factors, or associations.
â??Negativeâ? research is also very useful.
â??Negativeâ? is actually a misnomer, and
the misinterpretation is widespread.
However, here we will target
relationships that investigators claim
exist, rather than null findings.
As has been shown previously, the
probability that a research finding
is indeed true depends on the prior
probability of it being true (before
doing the study), the statistical power
of the study, and the level of statistical
significance [10,11]. Consider a 2 � 2
table in which research findings are
compared against the gold standard
of true relationships in a scientific
field. In a research field both true and
false hypotheses can be made about
the presence of relationships. Let R
be the ratio of the number of â??true
relationshipsâ? to â??no relationshipsâ?
among those tested in the field. R
0696
is characteristic of the field and can
vary a lot depending on whether the
field targets highly likely relationships
or searches for only one or a few
true relationships among thousands
and millions of hypotheses that may
be postulated. Let us also consider,
for computational simplicity,
circumscribed fields where either there
is only one true relationship (among
many that can be hypothesized) or
the power is similar to find any of the
several existing true relationships. The
pre-study probability of a relationship
being true is R�(R 1). The probability
of a study finding a true relationship
reï¬?ects the power 1 â?? β (one minus
the Type II error rate). The probability
of claiming a relationship when none
truly exists re�ects the Type I error
rate, α. Assuming that c relationships
are being probed in the field, the
expected values of the 2 Ã? 2 table are
given in Table 1. After a research
finding has been claimed based on
achieving formal statistical significance,
the post-study probability that it is true
is the positive predictive value, PPV.
The PPV is also the complementary
probability of what Wacholder et al.
have called the false positive report
probability [10]. According to the 2
Ã? 2 table, one gets PPV = (1 â?? β)Râ?(R
â?? βR α). A research finding is thus
Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published
research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8): e124.
Copyright: © 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
Abbreviation: PPV, positive predictive value
John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene
and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of
Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical
Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of
Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts,
United States of America. E-mail: jioannid@cc.uoi.gr
Competing Interests: The author has declared that
no competing interests exist.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
August 2005 | Volume 2 | Issue 8 | e124
Table 1. Research Findings and True Relationships
Research
Finding
True Relationship
Yes
No
Total
Yes
No
Total
c(1 â?? β)R/(R 1)
cβR/(R 1)
cR/(R 1)
cα/(R 1)
c(1 â?? α)/(R 1)
c/(R 1)
c(R α â?? βR)/(R 1)
c(1 â?? α βR)/(R 1)
c
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.t001
more likely true than false if (1 â?? β)R
> α. Since usually the vast majority of
investigators depend on α = 0.05, this
means that a research finding is more
likely true than false if (1 â?? β)R > 0.05.
What is less well appreciated is
that bias and the extent of repeated
independent testing by different teams
of investigators around the globe may
further distort this picture and may
lead to even smaller probabilities of the
research findings being indeed true.
We will try to model these two factors in
the context of similar 2 Ã? 2 tables.
Bias
First, let us define bias as the
combination of various design, data,
analysis, and presentation factors that
tend to produce research findings
when they should not be produced.
Let u be the proportion of probed
analyses that would not have been
â??research findings,â? but nevertheless
end up presented and reported as
such, because of bias. Bias should not
be confused with chance variability
that causes some findings to be false by
chance even though the study design,
data, analysis, and presentation are
perfect. Bias can entail manipulation
in the analysis or reporting of findings.
Selective or distorted reporting is a
typical form of such bias. We may
assume that u does not depend on
whether a true relationship exists
or not. This is not an unreasonable
assumption, since typically it is
impossible to know which relationships
are indeed true. In the presence of bias
(Table 2), one gets PPV = ([1 â?? β]R
uβR)â?(R α â?? βR u â?? uα uβR), and
PPV decreases with increasing u, unless
1 â?? β â?¤ α, i.e., 1 â?? β â?¤ 0.05 for most
situations. Thus, with increasing bias,
the chances that a research finding
is true diminish considerably. This is
shown for different levels of power and
for different pre-study odds in Figure 1.
Conversely, true research findings
may occasionally be annulled because
of reverse bias. For example, with large
measurement errors relationships
PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org
are lost in noise [12], or investigators
use data inefficiently or fail to notice
statistically significant relationships, or
there may be con�icts of interest that
tend to â??buryâ? significant findings [13].
There is no good large-scale empirical
evidence on how frequently such
reverse bias may occur across diverse
research fields. However, it is probably
fair to say that reverse bias is not as
common. Moreover measurement
errors and inefficient use of data are
probably becoming less frequent
problems, since measurement error has
decreased with technological advances
in the molecular era and investigators
are becoming increasingly sophisticated
about their data. Regardless, reverse
bias may be modeled in the same way as
bias above. Also reverse bias should not
be confused with chance variability that
may lead to missing a true relationship
because of chance.
Testing by Several Independent
Teams
Several independent teams may be
addressing the same sets of research
questions. As research efforts are
globalized, it is practically the rule
that several research teams, often
dozens of them, may probe the same
or similar questions. Unfortunately, in
some areas, the prevailing mentality
until now has been to focus on
isolated discoveries by single teams
and interpret research experiments
in isolation. An increasing number
of questions have at least one study
claiming a research finding, and
this receives unilateral attention.
The probability that at least one
study, among several done on the
same question, claims a statistically
significant research finding is easy to
estimate. For n independent studies of
equal power, the 2 Ã? 2 table is shown in
Table 3: PPV = R(1 â?? βn)â?(R 1 â?? [1 â??
α]n â?? Rβn) (not considering bias). With
increasing number of independent
studies, PPV tends to decrease, unless
1 â?? β < α, i.e., typically 1 â?? β < 0.05. This is shown for different levels of power and for different pre-study odds in Figure 2. For n studies of different power, the term βn is replaced by the product of the terms βi for i = 1 to n, but inferences are similar. Corollaries A practical example is shown in Box 1. Based on the above considerations, one may deduce several interesting corollaries about the probability that a research finding is indeed true. Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Small sample size means smaller power and, for all functions above, the PPV for a true research finding decreases as power decreases towards 1 â?? β = 0.05. Thus, other factors being equal, research findings are more likely true in scientific fields that undertake large studies, such as randomized controlled trials in cardiology (several thousand subjects randomized) [14] than in scientific fields with small studies, such as most research of molecular predictors (sample sizes 100fold smaller) [15]. Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Power is also related to the effect size. Thus research findings are more likely true in scientific fields with large effects, such as the impact of smoking on cancer or cardiovascular disease (relative risks 3â??20), than in scientific fields where postulated effects are small, such as genetic risk factors for multigenetic diseases (relative risks 1.1â??1.5) [7]. Modern epidemiology is increasingly obliged to target smaller Table 2. Research Findings and True Relationships in the Presence of Bias Research Finding True Relationship Yes No Total Yes No Total (c[1 â?? β]R ucβR)/(R 1) (1 â?? u)cβR/(R 1) cR/(R 1) cα uc(1 â?? α)/(R 1) (1 â?? u)c(1 â?? α)/(R 1) c/(R 1) c(R α â?? βR u â?? uα uβR)/(R 1) c(1 â?? u)(1 â?? α βR)/(R 1) c DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.t002 0697 August 2005 | Volume 2 | Issue 8 | e124 effect sizes [16]. Consequently, the proportion of true research findings is expected to decrease. In the same line of thinking, if the true effect sizes are very small in a scientific field, this field is likely to be plagued by almost ubiquitous false positive claims. For example, if the majority of true genetic or nutritional determinants of complex diseases confer relative risks less than 1.05, genetic or nutritional epidemiology would be largely utopian endeavors. Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. As shown above, the post-study probability that a finding is true (PPV) depends a lot on the pre-study odds (R). Thus, research findings are more likely true in confirmatory designs, such as large phase III randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses thereof, than in hypothesis-generating experiments. Fields considered highly informative and creative given the wealth of the assembled and tested information, such as microarrays and other high-throughput discoveryoriented research [4,8,17], should have extremely low PPV. Corollary 4: The greater the ï¬?exibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Flexibility increases the potential for transforming what would be â??negativeâ? results into â??positiveâ? results, i.e., bias, u. For several research designs, e.g., randomized controlled trials [18â??20] or meta-analyses [21,22], there have been efforts to standardize their conduct and reporting. Adherence to common standards is likely to increase the proportion of true findings. The same applies to outcomes. True findings may be more common when outcomes are unequivocal and universally agreed (e.g., death) rather than when multifarious outcomes are devised (e.g., scales for schizophrenia outcomes) [23]. Similarly, fields that use commonly agreed, stereotyped analytical methods (e.g., KaplanMeier plots and the log-rank test) [24] may yield a larger proportion of true findings than fields where analytical methods are still under experimentation (e.g., artificial intelligence methods) and only â??bestâ? results are reported. Regardless, even in the most stringent research designs, bias seems to be a major problem. For example, there is strong evidence that selective outcome reporting, with manipulation of the outcomes and analyses reported, is a common problem even for randomized trails [25]. Simply abolishing selective publication would not make this problem go away. Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conï¬?icts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conï¬?icts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conï¬?icts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28]. Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. Table 3. Research Findings and True Relationships in the Presence of Multiple Studies Research Finding True Relationship Yes No Total Yes No Total cR(1 â?? βn)/(R 1) cRβn/(R 1) cR/(R 1) c(1 â?? [1 â?? α]n)/(R 1) c(1 â?? α)n/(R 1) c/(R 1) c(R 1 â?? [1 â?? α]n â?? Rβn)/(R 1) c([1 â?? α]n Rβn)/(R 1) c DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.t003 PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org 0698 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.g001 Figure 1. PPV (Probability That a Research Finding Is True) as a Function of the Pre-Study Odds for Various Levels of Bias, u Panels correspond to power of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive â??positiveâ? results. â??Negativeâ? results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a â??positiveâ? association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly August 2005 | Volume 2 | Issue 8 | e124 Box 1. An Example: Science at Low Pre-Study Odds Let us assume that a team of investigators performs a whole genome association study to test whether any of 100,000 gene polymorphisms are associated with susceptibility to schizophrenia. Based on what we know about the extent of heritability of the disease, it is reasonable to expect that probably around ten gene polymorphisms among those tested would be truly associated with schizophrenia, with relatively similar odds ratios around 1.3 for the ten or so polymorphisms and with a fairly similar power to identify any of them. Then R = 10/100,000 = 10â??4, and the pre-study probability for any polymorphism to be associated with schizophrenia is al ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15