Why most published research findings are false
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 pro...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PLoS medicine 2005-08, Vol.2 (8), p.e124-e124 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e124 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | e124 |
container_title | PLoS medicine |
container_volume | 2 |
creator | Ioannidis, John P A |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1288067959</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_52d69fba56f94a93972d38c6da6554c6</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2893107111</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c711t-5586a2235be8014e9b57e0e9995d8bc82a95523d17c756e692a191005365dcb43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkV9rFDEUxYMotla_geiA0Lddc5O5-fMiSLFaKPii-BgyyZ3dWWYnazJT6Ld32h21FZ9uSH7nJCeHsdfA1yA1vN-lKQ--Xx_2FNecCw6ifsJOAWu7AqXV0wfrE_ailN0MWW75c3YCiiuuhThl6x_b22qfylgdpqbvypZilamQz2Fbtd0Qu2FTKp-pan1f6CV7dj9fLfOMfb_89O3iy-r66-eri4_Xq6ABxhWiUV4IiQ0ZDjXZBjVxstZiNE0wwltEISPooFGRssKDBc5RKoyhqeUZe3v0PfSpuCVqcSCM4UpbtDNxdSRi8jt3yN3e51uXfOfuN1LeOJ_HLvTkUERl28ajam3trbRaRGmCil4h1kHNXh-W26Zm_s1Aw5h9_8j08cnQbd0m3TgAI6TQs8H5YpDTz4nK6PZdCdT3fqA0FacMgqkFzuC7f8D_Z6uPVMiplEztn6cAd3fl_1a5u_LdUv4se_Mwxl_R0rb8BcmgqvU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1288067959</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why most published research findings are false</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Ioannidis, John P A</creator><creatorcontrib>Ioannidis, John P A</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16060722</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bias ; Communication in Health Care ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Epidemiology/Public Health ; Expected values ; General Medicine ; Genetics/Genomics/Gene Therapy ; Hypotheses ; Likelihood Functions ; Medical journals ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Odds Ratio ; Other ; Probability ; Publishing ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design ; Sample Size ; Science Policy ; Statistical significance ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>PLoS medicine, 2005-08, Vol.2 (8), p.e124-e124</ispartof><rights>2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c711t-5586a2235be8014e9b57e0e9995d8bc82a95523d17c756e692a191005365dcb43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c711t-5586a2235be8014e9b57e0e9995d8bc82a95523d17c756e692a191005365dcb43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16060722$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ioannidis, John P A</creatorcontrib><title>Why most published research findings are false</title><title>PLoS medicine</title><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Communication in Health Care</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Epidemiology/Public Health</subject><subject>Expected values</subject><subject>General Medicine</subject><subject>Genetics/Genomics/Gene Therapy</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Likelihood Functions</subject><subject>Medical journals</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Other</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><issn>1549-1676</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkV9rFDEUxYMotla_geiA0Lddc5O5-fMiSLFaKPii-BgyyZ3dWWYnazJT6Ld32h21FZ9uSH7nJCeHsdfA1yA1vN-lKQ--Xx_2FNecCw6ifsJOAWu7AqXV0wfrE_ailN0MWW75c3YCiiuuhThl6x_b22qfylgdpqbvypZilamQz2Fbtd0Qu2FTKp-pan1f6CV7dj9fLfOMfb_89O3iy-r66-eri4_Xq6ABxhWiUV4IiQ0ZDjXZBjVxstZiNE0wwltEISPooFGRssKDBc5RKoyhqeUZe3v0PfSpuCVqcSCM4UpbtDNxdSRi8jt3yN3e51uXfOfuN1LeOJ_HLvTkUERl28ajam3trbRaRGmCil4h1kHNXh-W26Zm_s1Aw5h9_8j08cnQbd0m3TgAI6TQs8H5YpDTz4nK6PZdCdT3fqA0FacMgqkFzuC7f8D_Z6uPVMiplEztn6cAd3fl_1a5u_LdUv4se_Mwxl_R0rb8BcmgqvU</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>Ioannidis, John P A</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><scope>CZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>Why most published research findings are false</title><author>Ioannidis, John P A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c711t-5586a2235be8014e9b57e0e9995d8bc82a95523d17c756e692a191005365dcb43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Communication in Health Care</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Epidemiology/Public Health</topic><topic>Expected values</topic><topic>General Medicine</topic><topic>Genetics/Genomics/Gene Therapy</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Likelihood Functions</topic><topic>Medical journals</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Other</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ioannidis, John P A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><collection>PLoS Medicine</collection><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ioannidis, John P A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why most published research findings are false</atitle><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e124</spage><epage>e124</epage><pages>e124-e124</pages><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><eissn>1549-1676</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>16060722</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1549-1676 |
ispartof | PLoS medicine, 2005-08, Vol.2 (8), p.e124-e124 |
issn | 1549-1676 1549-1277 1549-1676 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1288067959 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
subjects | Bias Communication in Health Care Data Interpretation, Statistical Epidemiology/Public Health Expected values General Medicine Genetics/Genomics/Gene Therapy Hypotheses Likelihood Functions Medical journals Meta-Analysis as Topic Odds Ratio Other Probability Publishing Reproducibility of Results Research Design Sample Size Science Policy Statistical significance Statistics |
title | Why most published research findings are false |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T08%3A48%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20most%20published%20research%20findings%20are%20false&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20medicine&rft.au=Ioannidis,%20John%20P%20A&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e124&rft.epage=e124&rft.pages=e124-e124&rft.issn=1549-1676&rft.eissn=1549-1676&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E2893107111%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1288067959&rft_id=info:pmid/16060722&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_52d69fba56f94a93972d38c6da6554c6&rfr_iscdi=true |