In een notendop: hoe herken je slechte wetenschappelijke artikelen?



4 Responses to In een notendop: hoe herken je slechte wetenschappelijke artikelen?

  1. Rie says:

    Dit zou ik eigenlijk bij al mijn klachten bij de Reclame Code Commissie moeten toevoegen. Het geldt voor de verre meerderheid van mijn klachten.


  2. wilmamazone says:

    Je kunt ook al vraagtekens zetten bij wat er aan zo’n slecht artikel onnodig vooraf kan gaan:

    David H. Gorski, Steven P. Novella

    Clinical trials of integrative medicine: testing whether magic works?

    A new phenomenon in clinical trials has arisen over the past 20 years. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or integrative medicine (IM) modalities based on principles that bespeak infinitesimally low prior probability of success or that even violate well-established laws of physics and chemistry are being tested in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). CAM proponents frequently justify such RCTs by arguing that they will finally settle once and for all which CAM or IM modalities do and do not work. Our response is that this is a misguided viewpoint that has led to the infiltration of pseudoscience in academic medicine. We begin with a thought experiment.

    Imagine that someone were to describe to you a treatment modality based on two principles. The first principle states that……

    Published Online: August 20, 2014
    © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

  3. wilmamazone says:

    Edzard Ernst publiceerde gisteren:
    My summary of 20 years of alternative medicine research

    Let’s be clear and disclose what all of this actually means. The sequence of events, as I see it, can be summarized as follows:

    *We are foremost ALTERNATIVE! Our treatments are far too unique to be subjected to reductionist research; we therefore reject science and insist on an ALTERNATIVE.

    *We (well, some of us) have reconsidered our opposition and are prepared to test our hypotheses scientifically (NOT LEAST BECAUSE WE NEED THE RECOGNITION THAT THIS MIGHT BRING).

    *We are dismayed to see that the results are mostly negative; science, it turns out, works against our interests.

    *We need to reconsider our position.

    *We find it inconceivable that our treatments do not work; all the negative scientific results must therefore be wrong.

    *We always said that our treatments are unique; now we realize that they are far too holistic and complex to be submitted to reductionist scientific methods.

    *We still believe in science (or at least want people to believe that we do) – but we need a different type of science.

    *We insist that RCTs (and all other scientific methods that fail to demonstrate the value of CAM) are not adequate tools for testing complex interventions such as CAM.

    *We have determined that reductionist research methods disturb our subtle treatments.

    *We need pragmatic trials and similarly ‘soft’ methods that capture ‘real life’ situations, do justice to CAM and rarely produce a negative result.

    What all of this really means is that, whenever the findings of research fail to disappoint CAM-proponents, the results are by definition false-negative. The obvious solution to this problem is to employ different (weaker) research methods, preferably those that cannot possibly generate a negative finding. Or, to put it bluntly: in CAM, science is acceptable only as long as it produces the desired results.

  4. wilmamazone says:

    Quote van de dag:

    Er zijn wél heel veel voorbeelden van ondernemers (vooral in de gezondheidssector) die beweren middeltjes te hebben van een soort waarvoor Nobelprijzen zouden worden uitgereikt als het echt iets voorstelde.

    (vet door mij)

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit / Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

%d bloggers liken dit: