Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374485›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Fake facts and alternative truths in medical research.

Bjørn Hofmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Surveillance mammography in older women-should we press on?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The role of philosophy and ethics at the edges of medicine.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2021
    Article
  8. Do we need the criminalization of medical fake news?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021
    Article
  9. Overdiagnosis: one concept, three perspectives, and a model.European journal of epidemiology · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bjørn HofmannThe Institute for the Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), PO Box 1, N-2802, Gjøvik, Norway. bjoern.hofmann@ntnu.no.ORCID 0000-0001-6709-4265

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFake news and alternative facts have become commonplace in these so-called "post-factual times." What about medical research - are scientific facts fake as well? Many recent disclosures have fueled the claim that scientific facts are suspect and that science is in crisis. Scientists appear to engage in facting interests instead of revealing interesting facts. This can be observed in terms of what has been called polarised research, where some researchers continuously publish positive results while others publish negative results on the same issue - even when based on the same data. In order to identify and address this challenge, the objective of this study is to investigate how polarised research produce "polarised facts." Mammography screening for breast cancer is applied as an example. MAIN BODY: The main benefit with mammography screening is the reduced breast cancer mortality, while the main harm is overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Accordingly, the Overdiagnosis to Mortality Reduction Ratio (OMRR) is an estimate of the risk-benefit-ratio for mammography screening. As there are intense interests involved as well as strong opinions in debates on mammography screening, one could expect polarisation in published results on OMRR. A literature search identifies 8 studies publishing results for OMRR and reveals that OMRR varies 25-fold, from 0.4 to 10. Two experts in polarised research were asked to rank the attitudes of the corresponding authors to mammography screening of the identified publications. The results show a strong correlation between the OMRR and the authors' attitudes to screening (R = 0.9).

conclusionMammography screening for breast cancer appears as an exemplary field of strongly polarised research. This is but one example of how scientists' strong professional interests can polarise research. Instead of revealing interesting facts researchers may come to fact interests. In order to avoid this and sustain trust in science, researchers should disclose professional and not only financial interests when submitting and publishing research.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiomedical ResearchKnowledgeMammographyMass ScreeningResearch PersonnelAgedBiasBreast NeoplasmsConflict of InterestDisclosureDissent and DisputesEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansBreast cancerConflict of interestMammography screeningMortalityOverdiagnosisPolarized research

Identifiers

PMID29374485
PMCPMC5787277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.