I told you last month about a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) review that found as many as a third of the studies published over 13 years (1990-2003) whose results were contradicted or overblown. An interesting piece in yesterday's Boston Globe discusses some of the interesting and necessary repercussions that may reshape how medical studies are conducted.
The big problem: The peer review process that judges medical studies. A scary comment from JAMA's deputy editor: The more we look into (peer review), the harder it is to prove whether it does good or bad.
The editor even proposed a comparison of peer review medical studies versus those that's weren't, but in his words, "No journal is willing to risk it."
Why? Perhaps, it's the secret way peer reviews are conducted. Reviewers aren't paid for their time, nor are their reviews, comments or names shared with the public or their peers. Additionally, reviewers aren't allowed to ask researchers any questions about their studies nor do they try to compare the results with research of their own.
You'd think after the results of the JAMA study were made public, scientists and journal editors would be eager to make changes, especially during a world congress on peer review next month in Chicago.
But that meeting is one for discussing topics, experts say, not making sweeping changes. Moreover, some young peer reviewers are concerned – with good reason – that disputing the work of older peers will hurt their careers. And other publications, like the new England Journal of Medicine, aren't convinced keeping the status quo isn't a good thing...
Sounds like a profession in complete denial of its shortcomings, and a good reason my Web site – focused on natural treatments instead of one-pill cures – has surged in popularity over the past year.
Boston Globe August 15, 2005 Registration Required