Title |
A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Patient Safety, June 2016
|
DOI | 10.1097/pts.0000000000000265 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kevin T. Kavanagh, Stephen S. Tower, Daniel M. Saman |
Abstract |
The medical literature is prone to overstating results, a condition not thoroughly recognized among policymakers. This article sets forth examples of potential problems with research integrity in the infectious disease literature. We describe articles that may be spun, categories lumped together in hopes of creating a significant effect (and sometimes an insignificant one), changes in metrics, and how trials may fail because of suboptimal interventions. When examined together, the examples show that the problems are widespread and illustrate the difficulty associated with interpreting medical research. The state of the current medical literature makes it of utmost importance that all sections of the manuscript are read, including associated letters to the editors and information on ClinicalTrials.gov before authors' recommendations are accepted.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 26 | 48% |
Canada | 7 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
Switzerland | 2 | 4% |
Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Colombia | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 22 | 41% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 26% |
Scientists | 11 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 17% |
Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 17% |
Unknown | 3 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 30% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 9% |
Unknown | 4 | 17% |