A new study suggests probable scientific misconduct in at least some of 33 bone health trials published in various medical journals. The study used statistical methods to detect scientific misconduct or research fraud and calls into question the validity of a body of research work led mainly by one researcher in Japan. The study is published in the November 9, 2016, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
For the analysis of the 33 trials, 26 of which Sato was lead author, Bolland’s team conducted a rigorous review and found reported results that differed markedly from what could be expected statistically; further, the results were remarkably positive.
The characteristics of the groups of people chosen to participate in the trials were much more similar than would have happened by chance. The trials reported large reductions in hip fractures, no matter what treatment was used, that were much greater than those reported in similar trials from other research groups. Overall in the 33 trials, the people receiving the therapy were 78 percent less likely to break a hip than the control group, while several meta-analyses of other trials found either no benefit of the treatments or a benefit of less than 40 percent.
Bolland’s team also found multiple examples of inconsistencies between and within trials, errors in reported data, misleading text, duplicated data and text as well as uncertainties about ethical oversight.
Paper. (public access) – Mark J. Bolland, Alison Avenell, Greg D. Gamble and Andrew Grey. Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology, 2016 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003387More.
So much we were told to believe is so apparently ain’t. There’s so much of this stuff now that claims about the authority of “science” in general are becoming ridiculous.
See also: ADHD: How science, misused can “create” an epidemic
Also, nutrition science is nearly baseless but it rules.
Whole foods scams do not inspire rage Why not?