Summary of Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Looking for the article?
We have the summary! Get the key insights in just 5 minutes.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False summary
Start getting smarter:
or see our plans

Rating

8 Overall

10 Importance

8 Innovation

7 Style


Recommendation

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” Those are fighting words, but if anyone has the right to say them, John Ioannidis does. He’s co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and one of the researchers other scientists cite most often. This is one of his best-known papers. getAbstract recommends his insights to researchers, research readers and anyone who would like to be more scientifically literate. Readers interested in Ioannidis’s framework for assessing the proportion of false positive findings should refer to the original paper.

In this summary, you will learn

  • Why many research claims are false;
  • How questionable research design, bias and repeated tests lead to false positive results; and
  • How to assess the credibility of research results.
 

About the Author

John P. A. Ioannidis is a professor at Stanford University. He directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center and co-directs the Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRICS) at Stanford.

 

Summary

When various study types are subjected to simulations that assess power, ratio of true to untrue relationships, and bias very few have a positive predictive value of more than 50%. Indicators of substandard scientific studies include:


More on this topic

Customers who read this summary also read

It’s Not Complicated
It’s Not Complicated
7
Science in America
Science in America
9
A Field Guide to Lies
A Field Guide to Lies
8
Claudia Hammond on the Psychology of Money
Claudia Hammond on the Psychology of Money
7
The End of Average
The End of Average
8
Genetic Testing Fumbles, Revealing ‘Dark Side’ of Precision Medicine
Genetic Testing Fumbles, Revealing ‘Dark Side’ of Precision Medicine
7

Comment on this summary