Do Medical Journals Publish Original Work Anymore? Enough already with meta-analyses

Discussion in 'Research methodology news and research' started by Jaybee00, Nov 27, 2019.

  1. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,991
  2. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,134
    Location:
    Canada
    Part of the authors conclusion:

    [What should we do? It is time that journal editors agreed to a moratorium on the publication of meta-analyses, especially those whose analyses are based on very few events reported in only a handful of trials. Sadly, the current peer-review process no longer provides an effective means of identifying the very few meta-analyses that are truly worthy of publication.

    If editors do not act collectively and constructively to stop the current epidemic, the metastasis of meta-analyses will extinguish any vitality that still remains in medical journals. The number of papers reporting already published data will exceed the number of papers reporting original data.]
     
    Snow Leopard, MEMarge, EzzieD and 9 others like this.
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,919
    Location:
    Canada
    That's one side of the problem.

    The other is the 800 identical trials or reviews of "is CBT the cure for CFS" or "is anxiety the cause of CFS". Besides a crisis of replicability, there is another huge crisis of doing the exact same stuff over and over again despite always finding a negative answer.

    So much damn pointless waste and it's depressing that no one seems bothered by it. If anything there will be more of it before it finally ends up in flames.
     
    MEMarge, obeat, EzzieD and 5 others like this.
  4. James Morris-Lent

    James Morris-Lent Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    United States
    This is why PACE is so excellent, in my opinion. It was definitive and showed people outside of the cabal that the whole project is definitively not helpful.

    I doubt they'll ever make the mistake of doing a definitive trial again. Better to just spam smaller manufactured results that give much more wiggle-room.
     
    rvallee, MEMarge, Trish and 6 others like this.
  5. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,490
    Location:
    Australia
    Might be pushing their luck asking for that kind of money again.
     
    MEMarge, Trish, DokaGirl and 2 others like this.
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    53,396
    Location:
    UK
    Most of these trials in the UK seem to be funded by the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research), not the MRC (Medical Research Council). I wonder if you added up all these small junk trials and the bigger more well known ones like SMILE, FITNET, PRINCE etc it might actually add up to more than the £5 million that was reputed to be spent on PACE. I should think Chalder and Crawley between them have soaked up several million.
     
    ukxmrv, alktipping, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,855
    Location:
    Australia
    How else will we write Wikipedia articles that state our views if not by performing biased meta-analyses for the purpose of confirming our a-priori beliefs?
     
  8. JES

    JES Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    209
    What they are doing is by definition how Einstein defined insanity. I wonder in what other research career you can keep proposing the same hypothesis for decades after decades if it only produces muddled, let alone negative results. PACE has solved one part of the problem, but it seems the next step is to muddle things even further with proposing the functional/somatization categories.
     
    Sean, rvallee, MEMarge and 2 others like this.

Share This Page