Clusterheadaches.com Message Board


    
      
        Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2005 General Board Posts >> One-third of research is incorrect
        
(Message started by: Topical on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 5:42am)

Title: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Topical on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 5:42am

This was interesing and I haven't seen it mentioned.

JAMA looked at 45 past studies to see if their findings were accurate.

"<The> research contradicted results of seven studies -- 16 percent -- and reported weaker results for seven others, an additional 16 percent."

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050714_medical_studies.html

This reminds me of a post I made tonight on gamma knife surgery for CH. A 1998 study said it was an effective treatment. A later study contradicted the earlier study and came to a different conclusion.
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=meds;action=display;num=1122019796

There are so few CH'ers and the study groups are so limited in size that it makes me wonder how many other studies have completely incorrect findings. I think we are at a higher risk than say a heart disease study.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by BobG on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 5:54am

Could be a case of

78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Topical on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 7:01am

:) Could be; I used to work as a telephone surveyor, while I didn't fill in the blanks...others did.

It's sort of a catch 22, the JAMA study has a 1/3 chance of being wrong or inaccurate. [smiley=huh.gif]

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Frank_W on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 7:35am

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Gator on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 10:11am

(Most) Doctors and scientists do their best to come to accurate conclusions and present their findings in good faith. It's really not in their best interest to do otherwise. Yes, a lot of conclusions end up being proven incorrect years after the fact. As our understanding of how the human body works and as scientific tools and methods become more precise we can expect many conclusions we now hold as truth to be dispelled. That doesn't mean we should totally discount and distrust every conclusion being made. We have to make the best decisions we can with the information available. Yes, we should do our own due diligence in making sure whatever treatment is right for us, but to do nothing out of fear of being wrong could be more dangerous in the long run.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by giffy76 on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 10:27am

The best statistics for ch didn't come from a doc. it came from this site. We all learn from each others experiences. If I have a question about ch, I'm not asking my doc. I ask all of you. Doctors talk alot of jibberish and they annoy me.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by vig on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 10:32am

A doctor's first priority is to feed his family.
Helping us comes later.

A pharmaceutical company's first priority is the shareholder.
They actually fund a lot of the academic studies and have shown that they hide the results of studies that don't turn out in their favor.
Helping us comes later.

The FDA 'tries' to be an intermediary, but doesn't have the resources to accomplish its' mission.

With this condition, you have to learn to help yourself.
The medical community won't do it for you.
Read, learn, make the difficult choices and don't expect them to do it for you.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by burnt-toast on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 11:10am

I've been researching surgical options - one of the things making it difficult is references to the same clinical trial that don't even have matching numbers of patients that were included in the trial.

Hard to determine success/failure percentages when the base numbers keep changing.

The other thing is that there is a great deal of publishing high level abstracts with reference to the fact that the detailed information will be published at a later date.

Even talked my neuro. into using his resources to get detailed reports - He couldn't do any better than I have.

Are these folks just publishing information to bolster their credentials?

Tom

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Kevin_M on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 11:10am

A basic rule of thumb is to know who counted what, how, and why.

From: "More Damn Lies and Statistics", how numbers confuse public issues.
Joel Best, 303.38 B.

page excerpt:

JAMA sends out press releases about articles in the current issue that its editors hope will prove newsworthy. (Not all scientific journals do this; JAMA's principal rival for top medical journal honors, the New England Journal of Medicine, does not issue press releases to publicize its articles, although it does make advance copies of each issue available to the media.)
Presumably, JAMA want to get its name before the public, to give people the sense that it publishes important research. Among other things, JAMA's visibility makes top researchers more eager to submit their research to the journal; publication there offer an opportunity to bring one's work to the notice of not only fellow professionals but also the larger public (via newswire services). And researcher who successfully place their papers in highly prestigious journals in turn please their funders -- the government agencies or private foundations that supply the grants that pay for large-scale research. Knowing that their grants led to highly visible publications confirms to the funders that they spent their money wisely.
It is important to appreciate that this is an extremely competitive process. Funding agencies winnow through many grant applications to select those projects worthy of support. Would be authors submit about ten times more manuscripts to JAMA that that journal can publish...

The book mentioned above, takes a closer look at a couple of JAMA research releases to wire services that make it to local newspapers.

Another excellent book for self-examination of statistics is:

"Calculated Risks", how to tell when numbers deceive you.
Gerd Gigerenzer, 519.2 G

Kevin M

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Jasmyn on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 1:52pm

Just my spanner in the works. As CH goes, nothing is yet for certain and something I'm not quite certain about is if CH is hereditary. My daughter, about 5 years ago, started complaining about headaches. She was only 11 then. She was living with her father and he refused to let her see a doctor as he described it as pure nonsense.

When I got my kids back I took her to see a neuro and he diagnosed CH. That made me research a bit of my enstranged family's history.

I found that my grandfather had terrible headaches only on the one side of his head (he was a reclusive insomniac and people thought him a totally unsociable individual with a bad temper). Now I ask you, who wouldn't be? Remember in those days there were no diagnoses yet and he didn't have the meds we are accustomed to.

I contacted my father and heard that he had similar headaches that stopped for a period of approximately 20 years but started again and then he was dignosed with CH.

Now you see why I wonder and please don't tell me it is coincidence! Because headaches in the good ol'days were mostly ignored, who is to say that our ancestors did not carry a flawed gene (not the bloody blue things you cowboys wear in the US!)? If they knew it was hereditary they probably would have drowned me at birth, hopefully! ;;D

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by LeLimey on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 1:54pm

Hi Jas, my son has CH too and there is evidence here in the UK that there are genes responsible. Its still early days though. As soon as I know enough to be worth telling I'll let you know. I'm so sorry you too have a kid with CH, its the hardest thing in the world to take

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by seasonalboomer on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 2:02pm

My Dad had CH. His father had some form of headache which probably led him to be remembered as kind of a grumpy old bugger. His brother was epileptic and my cousins on my Dad's side have various forms of headache. Someone must'a stood too close to something they shouldn't have a few generations back, as likely as anything that has created brain malformation. Mine and Dad's of course in the hypothalamus. But, since you can't trade it in --- you share stories, "one time I was gettin hit so hard that I ____________, isn't that hilarious?" Ha ha ha.

There's something genetic as I'm against accepting some form of "curse" as being responsible. Nor does some form of divine punishment for some grievous sin committed. Nor does Mercury laced bologna seem possible.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Jasmyn on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 2:53pm

Lelimey, I hate to think that one of my children has to suffer through this. CH does not discriminate and is not a fair life partner.

Seasonalboomer, you are absolutely correct with not
"accepting some form of "curse" as being responsible. Nor does some form of divine punishment for some grievous sin committed. Nor does Mercury laced bologna seem possible"

1. Luckily people are to busy with their own lives to even consider cursing one another for real. Can you imagine the chaos if everyone had CH because someone got out of bed on the wrong foot?! [smiley=laugh.gif]
2. My personal opinion is that the divinity of the day is very much preoccupied with just fulfilling everyone's requests on demand as time is money today. Besides if we do not sin, how the hell can we become divine? Don't you need some or other form of repentance and then some kind of forgiveness to renounce sin before you are in for certain repercussions so that you can rebel and be reprimanded then show remorse and then relent reluctantly to remarkable behaviour untill you become remiss in your resolutions just to resort back to sin?
3. Lastly Mercury is a planet in which I have no particular interest as it is too far away and CH is closer.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Charlie on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 9:05pm

My dad was one of those stoic Swedes. He had to project the tough guy thing all the time. This makes me wonder about all those times....sometimes more than once a day, that he'd sit on the edge of the bed, in his pajamas grimmacing and sweating. Maybe this was more than angina? He did have that though and his heart finally crapped out on him at my age. Hard to say.

The guy had seizures too, as do I. [smiley=huh.gif]

Charlie; who has some serious questions for dieties that put us through this shit. >:(

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by floridian on Jul 22^nd, 2005, 10:37pm

I polished up the genetics entry in the online Cluster Headache Book:

http://www.med-owl.com/clusterheadaches/tiki-index.php?page=Genetics

Genetics does play a role in some people (maybe 20%) but most people who get CH develop it 'out of the blue' in terms of lineage.

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Not4Hire on Jul 23^rd, 2005, 1:07am

....FWIW:

Please remember that Statistics are often used the way a drunk uses a lamp post--for Support and not for Illumination...

(I wish I was smart enough to come up with an original thought and had enough memory to credit the originator...)

n4

Title: Re: One-third of research is incorrect
Post by Lizzie2 on Jul 23^rd, 2005, 1:46am

One thing I liked at AHS was that there were pages of disclosures and/or financial ties. Also, every presenter made a statement about disclosure. I think that really was quite appropriate for something where research plays such a huge part!

It's an ever-changing field. We read one study, and then a few months or years later, something comes out to say the opposite.

Hell in my own job I have a hard time keeping it straight! Breast milk or baby formula? Baby on back, stomach, or side? Car seat - front or back seat and does it face back or front? Sometimes I'm worried that I'll miss some big chanage, but I'm sure they'll put out a memo!

These are some current trends, which most of you know have flipped back and forth over the years!

Breast milk or formula is really a personal decision as formula has been improved greatly over the years. However, the colostrum is still THE best thing for an infant in the first couple of days. (Yeah, I bet that was a fact you were all interested in knowing!)

Babies should always lie on their backs. If you put them on their stomach or side, then you need to be there with them monitoring!

Car seats...man....this always changes. Car seat in the back seat (I think we've established that by now!) Car seat must go in the middle seat and be rear facing until the infant is a year old or 20 pounds - whichever comes LATER. Then, there's also a rule that a kid needs to be in a booster seat until they are 80 pounds! My one friend and I laughed over that - we didn't think we hit 80 pounds until Junior High! Pretty sure there was no booster seat involved by that time! ;)

My how things always change!

Eggs....good or bad for us? LOL

Research is funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. ;;D