Medical journal finds studies sometimes unreliable

Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^ | Jun 5, 2002 | Associated Press

[jdege]

CHICAGO -- One of the world's leading medical journals has put itself and its competitors under the microscope with research showing that published studies are sometimes misleading and frequently do not mention weaknesses.

Some problems can be traced to biases among peer reviewers, outside scientists tapped by journal editors to help decide whether a paper should be published, said several articles in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.

[jdege]

The article only mentions drug studies - does this mean we can trust their gun-control studies?

[jdege]

bump

[Hobsonphile]

I think a lot of garbage is getting by peer review these days.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Since so many logically challenged gun studies made it past their peer review, I have wondered the opposite question. Given their biased gun studies, can we trust their medical studies? This confirms my suspicions, thought bias admitted in their medical studies is minor compared to what was done in the gun studies. The gun studies are much closer to actual fraud.