文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

生物医学文献中的研究结果的伪造和歪曲。

Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.

机构信息

Methods of Therapeutic Evaluation Of Chronic Diseases (METHODS) team, INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (CRESS), F-75014 Paris, France;

Faculté de Médicine, Paris Descartes University, 75006 Paris, France.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2613-2619. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710755115.


DOI:10.1073/pnas.1710755115
PMID:29531025
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5856510/
Abstract

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be tempted to consciously or unconsciously "spin" their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers. This article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by "beautification" of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers' interpretation and research dissemination. We also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it.

摘要

在同行评议期刊上发表文章是科学研究过程中的一个重要步骤。然而,发表并不仅仅是简单地报告从直接分析中得出的事实。作者在撰写报告时有很大的自由度,并且可能会有意或无意地“歪曲”他们的研究结果。“歪曲”被定义为一种特定的、有意或无意的报告,未能忠实地反映研究结果的本质和范围,并且可能会影响读者对结果的印象。本文基于文献综述,报告了各种歪曲行为,包括美化方法的错误报告和错误解释结果的错误报告。本文还提供了特定领域某些形式歪曲行为的普遍性数据,以及某些类型的歪曲行为对读者解释和研究传播的可能影响。我们还讨论了为什么研究人员会歪曲他们的报告以及可能避免这种情况的方法。

相似文献

[1]
Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018-3-13

[2]
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Med. 2016-6-10

[3]
The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.

J Child Neurol. 2010-10

[4]
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1

[5]
Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.

BMJ Open. 2018-10-18

[6]
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).

Syst Rev. 2013-6-17

[7]
A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2014-11-7

[8]
Quality of scientific articles.

Rev Saude Publica. 2006-8

[9]
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.

BMC Med. 2014-9-26

[10]
A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021-2

引用本文的文献

[1]
Spin and reporting bias in the use of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025-8-12

[2]
A scoping review of outcome selection and accuracy of conclusions in complex digital health interventions for young people (2017-2023): methodological proposals for population health intervention research.

BMC Med. 2025-7-2

[3]
Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study.

PLoS One. 2025-6-5

[4]
Go Figure: Transparency in neuroscience images preserves context and clarifies interpretation.

ArXiv. 2025-4-10

[5]
Are Causal Statements Reported in Pharmacovigilance Disproportionality Analyses Using Individual Case Safety Reports Exaggerated in Related Citations? A Meta-epidemiological Study.

Drug Saf. 2025-6

[6]
Public engagement with research reproducibility.

PLoS Biol. 2024-12-11

[7]
Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.

PeerJ. 2024

[8]
Peer Review in : Promoting Integrity While Advancing Open Science.

JAACAP Open. 2023-11-1

[9]
Reevaluating ADHD and its First-Line Treatment: Insights from DSM-5-TR and Modern Approaches.

Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2024-10

[10]
Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin.

Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024-6-29

本文引用的文献

[1]
A manifesto for reproducible science.

Nat Hum Behav. 2017-1-10

[2]
Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months.

BMJ Open. 2017-11-3

[3]
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.

Environ Eng Sci. 2017-1-1

[4]
Outcomes in the trial registry should match those in the protocol.

Lancet. 2016-7-23

[5]
Impact of statin related media coverage on use of statins: interrupted time series analysis with UK primary care data.

BMJ. 2016-6-28

[6]
The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications.

mBio. 2016-6-7

[7]
Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes Published in High-impact Surgical Journals.

Ann Surg. 2017-6

[8]
Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency.

PLoS Biol. 2016-5-12

[9]
Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2016-9

[10]
Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015.

JAMA. 2016-3-15

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索