Meta-Analysis

I have read the article entitled "With Increasing Use Of Meta-Analysis Come Efforts To Boost Validity" (S.P. Hoffert, The Scientist, Jan. 5, 1998, page 7) with some interest, and I would like to comment on a few points. Everybody likes to write and to publish positive results of clinical trials much more than negative results. Thus, it is the responsibility of the editors of biomedical journals to work against their own bias and ensure that results of so-called negative trials are published as

Hans-peter Adams
Mar 1, 1998

I have read the article entitled "With Increasing Use Of Meta-Analysis Come Efforts To Boost Validity" (S.P. Hoffert, The Scientist, Jan. 5, 1998, page 7) with some interest, and I would like to comment on a few points.

Everybody likes to write and to publish positive results of clinical trials much more than negative results. Thus, it is the responsibility of the editors of biomedical journals to work against their own bias and ensure that results of so-called negative trials are published as well (at least as a concise report). A properly designed and executed clinical trial has no negative or positive results, but one or more valid hypotheses are proven or rejected at a chosen level of significance with a given statistical power.

I fear a universal registry will be of no use unless all registered trials are peer reviewed, or certified, and adhere at least...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?