Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 30 August 2005
- journal article
- essay
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 2 (8) , e124
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical ResearchJAMA, 2005
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validationNature Reviews Cancer, 2004
- Genetic associations: false or true?Trends in Molecular Medicine, 2003
- Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?BMJ, 2001
- Two cheers for P-values?Journal of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 2001
- Sifting the evidence---what's wrong with significance tests? Another comment on the role of statistical methodsBMJ, 2001
- Epidemiology Faces Its LimitsPublished by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ,1995
- A comment on D. V. Lindley's statistical paradoxBiometrika, 1957
- A STATISTICAL PARADOXBiometrika, 1957