Promoting Public Trust in Medical Research by Reevaluating Flawed Papers, finds a CANDOR Study

ATLANTA, April 5, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- What can scientists do to improve the public trust of research published in medical journals? Errors resulting in bad recommendations by researchers in papers published in medical journals have been a problem for decades. The author of a well-known paper published in 1998 by Lancet concluded that vaccination caused autism. Investigators found analytical errors and data falsification in the paper. Since then, many studies have found no evidence of a causal link between vaccination and autism. But unfortunately, even 25 years later, people believe that vaccination can result in autism and refuse to let their children be vaccinated.

Recently, researchers have found that a significant number of randomized controlled trials published in highly regarded journals have analytical errors, resulting in misleading conclusions.

Economic journals have found a mitigation method in requiring that for a paper: the authors must make their data (without identifying confidential details) and codes available. Other researchers can then investigate whether the results can be replicated. But medical journals rarely publish replication papers or acknowledge that they have published flawed studies.

Florence LeCraw, a physician, and coauthors performed a reevaluation study of a paper published in the highly regarded health policy journal Health Affairs. It showed that the authors of the original study made three serious errors. Two referees of Health Affairs agreed with LeCraw et al., but Health Affairs would not afford LeCraw et al. more than a brief letter to appear in the journal.

The authors published this study in Econ Journal Watch, which publishes papers that identify mistakes made by researchers with the goal to prevent recurrence of the mistakes. Dan Klein, an economist who started this journal, said his goal was "to encourage challenges of published research, to make research more honest and more careful."

The authors describe the errors made by the original investigators, but importantly, they recount their experience with Health Affairs when the journal discovered the errors. One editor told them that since their readership has little interest in replication papers, their policy is to not publish them. Several other editors said that they did not publish replication papers because they feared it would cause reputational damage.

Unfortunately, ignoring the uncovering of errors in published research seems to be the norm in medical journals. But experts believe that journals' long-term reputations are damaged by not admitting their peer review errors. They believe that a journal's reputation will be enhanced, not damaged, by publishing replication papers demonstrating mistakes made by their reviewers and also other medical journals' review mistakes. Publishing replication papers also helps prevent errors from recurring by explaining their cause.

For the public to trust that their published papers' conclusions are valid, it is imperative that medical journal editors encourage submissions of replication papers and that they be published. LeCraw concludes, "Admitting errors, describing the error made, and what can be done to prevent the recurrence of the error, is the basis of trust. Trust by the public will be key to advancing evidence-based healthcare practices and policies."

Reference

Title of paper:  Reassessing the Effects of a Communication-and-Resolution Program on Hospitals' Malpractice Claims and Costs

Journal: Econ Journal Watch

Article Link: https://econjwatch.org/articles/reassessing-the-effects-of-a-communication-and-resolution-program-on-hospitals-malpractice-claims-and-costs

About author

Florence R. LeCraw is a physician with >35 years of practice experience. She serves as an Adjunct Professor at Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Contact:
Florence R. LeCraw
+1 404-234-4312
[email protected]

SOURCE The CANDOR Coalition