Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

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 flexibility 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.

[1]  D. Lindley A STATISTICAL PARADOX , 1957 .

[2]  M. Bartlett A comment on D. V. Lindley's statistical paradox , 1957 .

[3]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? , 1984, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  Jennifer L. Kelsey,et al.  Methods in Observational Epidemiology , 1986 .

[5]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[6]  D G Altman,et al.  Transfer of technology from statistical journals to the biomedical literature. Past trends and future predictions. , 1994, JAMA.

[7]  G. Taubes Epidemiology faces its limits. , 1995, Science.

[8]  R. Kay Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials , 1998, The Journal of international medical research.

[9]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Scientific Journals and Their Authors’ Financial Interests: A Pilot Study , 1998, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

[10]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[11]  J. Mesirov,et al.  Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. , 1999, Science.

[12]  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  N. Risch Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium , 2000, Nature.

[14]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[15]  D G Altman,et al.  What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  C. Adams,et al.  Unpublished rating scales: A major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia , 2000, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[17]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 2000, Revista espanola de salud publica.

[18]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[19]  S. Senn Two cheers for P-values? , 2001, Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[21]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Replication validity of genetic association studies , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[22]  Anna-Bettina Haidich,et al.  Reporting of conflicts of interest in practice guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions , 2001 .

[23]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Anna-Bettina Haidich,et al.  Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Predictive ability of DNA microarrays for cancer outcomes and correlates: an empirical assessment , 2003, The Lancet.

[26]  P. McKeigue,et al.  For Personal Use. Only Reproduce with Permission from the Lancet Publishing Group. Problems of Reporting Genetic Associations with Complex Outcomes , 2022 .

[27]  Huey-miin Hsueh,et al.  Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Number of True Null Hypotheses in Multiplicity Testing , 2003, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[28]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Genetic associations: false or true? , 2003, Trends in molecular medicine.

[29]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[30]  D. Ransohoff Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[31]  Eric J Topol,et al.  Failing the public health--rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[33]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[34]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[35]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[36]  R. Horton,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, Circulation research.

[37]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? , 2004, The Lancet.

[38]  Jan P Vandenbroucke,et al.  When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? , 2004, The Lancet.

[39]  Stefan Michiels,et al.  Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: a multiple random validation strategy , 2005, The Lancet.

[40]  J. Ioannidis Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. , 2005, JAMA.

[41]  J. Ioannidis Microarrays and molecular research: noise discovery? , 2005, The Lancet.

[42]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, Circulation.

[43]  Thomas A Trikalinos,et al.  Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[44]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  [Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement]. , 2005, Ugeskrift for laeger.