[ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 6 10:32:40 CDT 2006
Thanks for point this article out. However, the list
or database that the author cited, PubMeb, is
primarily medical articles, not radiation biology. I
assume that you would have understood this if you had
read the article and not just the absract.
As I had posted in the past:
>From an article about physicians doing clinical
"It was just before an early morning meeting, and I
was really trying
to get to the bagels, but I couldn't help overhearing
a conversation between one of my statistical
colleagues and a surgeon.
Statistician: "Oh, so you have already calculated the
Surgeon: "Yes, I used multinomial logistic
Statistician: "Really? How did you come up with that?"
Surgeon: "Well, I tried each analysis on the SPSS
drop-down menus, and that was the one that gave the
smallest P value"."
--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> "Significant results in abstracts are common but
> should generally be
> disbelieved." !
> Gotzsche P C.
> Believability of relative risks and odds in
> abstracts: cross sectional
> British Medical Journal 333(2006)231-234
> Queerly, important committees or authors from a "Who
> is Who" in
> radiation biology perpetuate such 'conclusions' -
> apparently without
> even reading the article let alone looking at the
May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the RadSafe