What are fair tests of treatments?
Not all is created equal: some tests of s are more reliable than others. Sometimes tests of treatments can be […]
| 0 CommentsWhat can be done to improve tests of treatments?
We can all play a part in ensuring that treatment decisions are based on fair tests of treatments. This will […]
| 0 CommentsLinguistic strategies for improving informed consent in clinical trials among low health literacy patients
Evidence-based guidance on how to improve informed consent processes for patients being invited to participate in clinical research.
| 0 Comments | EvaluatedInformed Health Choices Podcasts
Each episode includes a short story with an example of a treatment claim and a simple explanation of a Key Concept used to assess that claim
| 1 Comment | EvaluatedKnow Your Chances
This book has been shown in two randomized trials to improve peoples' understanding of risk in the context of health care choices.
| 0 Comments | EvaluatedEvidence for everyday health choices
A 17-min slide cast by Lynda Ware, on the history of EBM, what Cochrane is, and how to understand the real evidence behind the headlines.
| 0 CommentsSunn Skepsis
Denne portalen er ment å gi deg som pasient råd om kvalitetskriterier for helseinformasjon og tilgang til forskningsbasert informasjon.
| 0 CommentsDancing statistics: Explaining variance
A 5-minute film demonstrating the statistical concept of variance through dance.
| 0 CommentsDancing statistics: sampling & standard error
A 5-minute film demonstrating the statistical concept of sampling and standard error through dance.
| 0 CommentsJulia Belluz – Lessons from the trenches of evidence-based health journalism at Vox.com
20-minute talk by Julia Belluz on the need to bring the cultures of health journalism and EBM together.
| 0 CommentsDon’t jump to conclusions, #Ask for Evidence
An introduction to the ‘Ask for Evidence’ initiative launched by ‘Sense about Science’ in 2016.
| 0 CommentsThe surrogate battle – is lower always better?
James McCormick recruits a furious Fuhrer to point out that taking drugs to lower surrogate measures of ill health is a confidence trick.
| 0 CommentsTom Hanks and Type 2 Diabetes
A 50-minute illustrated talk by James McCormack prompted by Tom Hanks’ announcement that he had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
| 0 CommentsBohemian Polypharmacy
James McCormack recruits help from Queen to warn of the dangers of ‘Bohemian Polypharmacy’ in music.
| 0 CommentsChoosing Wisely
James McCormack using song and dance to warn about the negative effects of overtreatment.
| 0 CommentsLike a bridge overdiagnosis
James McCormack with another of his brilliant parodies, warning about the dangers of becoming inappropriately labelled as ill.
| 0 CommentsReporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk
Absolute Differences between the effects of two treatments matter more to most people than Relative Differences.
| 0 CommentsExplaining the mission of the AllTrials Campaign (TED talk)
Half the clinical trials of medicines we use haven’t been published. Síle Lane shows how the AllTrials Campaign is addressing this scandal.
| 0 CommentsFish oil in the Observer: the return of a $2bn friend
Ben Goldacre draws attention to people’s wish to believe that a pill can be the solution to a complicated problem.
| 0 CommentsBuilding evidence into education
Ben Goldacre explains why appropriate infrastructure is need to do clinical trials of sufficient rigour and size to yield reliable results.
| 0 CommentsAnecdotes are great – if they convey data accurately
Ben Goldacre gives examples of how conclusions based on anecdotes and biased research can be damagingly misleading.
| 0 CommentsStudies of studies show that we get things wrong
Ben Goldacre gives examples of how conclusions based on anecdotes and biased research can be damagingly misleading.
| 0 CommentsDodgy academic PR
Ben Goldacre: 58% of all press releases by academic institutions lacked relevant cautions and caveats about the methods and results reported
| 0 CommentsAll bow before the mighty power of the nocebo effect
Ben Goldacre discusses nocebo effects, through which unpleasant symptoms are induced by negative expectations, despite no physical cause.
| 0 CommentsHow do you regulate Wu?
Ben Goldacre finds that students of Chinese medicine are taught (on a science degree) that the spleen is “the root of post-heaven essence”.
| 0 CommentsScience is about embracing your knockers
Ben Goldacre: “I don’t trust claims without evidence, especially not unlikely ones about a magic cream that makes your breasts expand.”
| 0 CommentsNMT are suing Dr Wilmshurst. So how trustworthy are this company? Let’s look at their website…
Ben Goldacre celebrates Peter Wilmshurst, the doctor who blew the whistle on research misconduct in a study to which he was a contributor.
| 0 CommentsOver there! An 8 mile high distraction made of posh chocolate!
Ben Goldcare illustrates strategies used by vested interests to discredit research with ‘inconvenient’ results.
| 0 CommentsBrain imaging studies report more positive findings than their numbers can support. This is fishy.
Ben Goldacre explores how twice as many positive findings as could realistically have been expected from the data reported may have occurred
| 0 CommentsWhat if academics were as dumb as quacks with statistics?
Ben Goldacre introduces a statistical error that appears in about half of all the published papers in academic neuroscience research.
| 0 CommentsThe strange case of the magnetic wine
Ben Goldacre shows how claims for the wine-maturing effects of magnets could be assessed with 50 people in an evening.
| 0 CommentsScreen test
Ben Goldacre notes that even if people realize that screening programmes have downsides, people don’t regret being screened.
| 0 CommentsSampling error, the unspoken issue behind small number changes in the news
Ben Goldacre stresses the importance of taking account of “sampling variability” and confidence intervals.
| 0 CommentsThe certainty of chance
Ben Goldacre reminds readers how associations may simply reflect the play of chance, and describes Deming’s illustration of this.
| 0 CommentsPublish or be damned
Ben Goldacre points out the indefensible practice of announcing conclusions from research studies which haven’t been published.
| 0 CommentsHow myths are made
Ben Goldacre draws attention to Steven Greenberg’s forensically based illustration of citation biases.
| 0 CommentsForeign substances in your precious bodily fluids
Ben Goldacre points out that there is no evidence giving strong support either to water fluoridationists or to anti-fluoridationists.
| 0 CommentsIs it okay to ignore results from people you don’t trust?
Ben Goldacre: why it’s important to consider vested interests when judging research, but not to dismiss research by people you don’t like.
| 0 CommentsCherry picking is bad. At least warn us when you do it.
Ben Goldacre illustrates how biased ‘cherry picking’ and choosing from the relevant evidence can result in unreliable conclusions.
| 0 CommentsWhy won’t Professor Susan Greenfield publish this theory in a scientific journal?
Ben Goldacre challenges senior Oxford professor to publish the evidence supporting her claim that computer games cause dementia in children.
| 0 CommentsWeasels Are on the Loose
Weaseling is the use of certain words to weaken a claim, so that the author can say something without actually saying it and avoid criticism
| 0 CommentsIntroduction to Evidence-Based Medicine
Bill Caley’s 26 slides with notes used as an ‘Introduction to Evidence-Based Medicine’.
| 0 CommentsThe power of the placebo effect
Emma Bryce’s video presents information about placebo effects: treatments not supposed to have an effect but which make people feel better.
| 0 CommentsNot all scientific studies are created equally
David Schwartz dissects two types of studies that scientists use, illuminating why you should always approach claims with a critical eye.
| 1 CommentTaking account of the play of chance
Differences in outcome events in treatment comparisons may reflect only the play of chance. Increased numbers of events reduces this problem
| 0 CommentsQuantifying uncertainty in treatment comparisons
Small studies in which few outcome events occur are usually not informative and the results are sometimes seriously misleading.
| 0 CommentsBringing it all together for the benefit of patients and the public
Improving reports of research and up-to-date systematic reviews of reliable studies are essential foundations of effective health care.
| 0 CommentsTipsheet for reporting on drugs, devices and medical technologies
Questions that will be familiar to reporters covering health and medicine.
| 0 CommentsTips for understanding Intention-to-Treat analysis
Ignoring non-compliance with assigned treatments leads to biased estimates of treatment effects. ITT analysis reduces these biases.
| 0 CommentsTips for understanding Absolute vs. Relative Risk
Absolute Differences between the effects of two treatments matter more to most people than Relative Differences.
| 0 CommentsTips for understanding Non-inferiority Trials
A non-inferiority experiment endeavours to show that a new intervention is ‘not unacceptably worse’ than the comparison intervention.
| 0 CommentsCyagen is paying for citations
Pharmaceutical company Cyagen offers researchers and other writers $100 or more for citing their products in publications.
| 0 CommentsGenerationR – The importance of involving children and young people in research
3/3, 22-min video at the launch of GenerationR, a network of young people who advise researchers.
| 0 CommentsGeneration R – The need to reduce waste in clinical research involving children
1/3, 14-min video at the launch of GenerationR, a network of young people who advise researchers.
| 0 CommentsMaking sense of randomized trials
A description of how clinical trials are constructed and analysed to ensure they provide fair comparisons of treatments.
| 0 CommentsCommon Sources of Bias
Bias (the conscious or unconscious influencing of a study and its results) can occur in different ways and renders studies less dependable.
| 0 Comments5 reasons why you might not get the best healthcare
Five reasons why patients may not always get the best care available.
| 0 CommentsTamiflu: securing access to medical research data
A campaign by researchers has shown that Roche spun the research on Tamiflu to meet their commercial ends.
| 0 CommentsMMR: the facts in the case of Dr Andrew Wakefield
This 15-page cartoon explains the events surrounding the MMR controversy, and provides links to the relevant evidence.
| 5 CommentsLos intervalos de confianza en investigación
¿Para qué sirven los intervalos de confianza en los estudios de investigación?
| 0 CommentsToma de Decisiones Compartidas
¿Por qué nosotros, los pacientes, debemos participar en la toma de decisiones médicas importantes?
| 0 CommentsThe need to compare like-with-like in treatment comparisons
Allocation bias results when trials fail to ensure that, apart from the treatments being compared, ‘like will be compared with like'.
| 0 CommentsWhy avoiding differences between treatments allocated and treatments received is important
Knowledge of which treatments have been received by which study participants can affect adherence to assigned treatments and result in bias.
| 0 CommentsThe need to avoid differences in the way treatment outcomes are assessed
Biased treatment outcome assessment can result if people know which participants have received which treatments.
| 0 CommentsAvoiding biased selection from the available evidence
Systematic reviews are used to identify, evaluate and summarize all the evidence relevant to addressing a particular question.
| 0 CommentsPreparing and maintaining systematic reviews of all the relevant evidence
Unbiased, up-to-date systematic reviews of all the relevant, reliable evidence are needed to inform practice and policy.
| 0 CommentsDealing with biased reporting of the available evidence
Biased reporting of research occurs when the direction or statistical significance of results influences how research is reported.
| 0 CommentsUsing the results of up-to-date systematic reviews of research
Trustworthy evidence from research is necessary, but not sufficient, to improve the quality of health care.
| 0 CommentsWhy treatment comparisons must be fair
Fair treatment comparisons avoid biases and reduce the effects of the play of chance.
| 0 CommentsIntroduction to JLL Explanatory Essays
Professionals sometimes harm patients by using inadequately evaluated treatments. Research addressing uncertainties can reduce this harm.
| 0 CommentsAvoiding biased treatment comparisons
Biases in tests of treatments are those factors that can lead to conclusions that are systematically different from the truth.
| 0 CommentsBias introduced after looking at study results
Biases can be introduced when knowledge of the results of studies influences analysis and reporting decisions.
| 0 CommentsReducing biases in judging unanticipated effects of treatments
As with anticipated effects of treatments, biases and the play of chance must be reduced in assessing suspected unanticipated effects.
| 0 CommentsRecognizing researcher/sponsor biases and fraud
The vested interests of researchers and organizations tend to be reflected in reports of treatment research in which they are involved.
| 0 CommentsVideo games and health improvement: a literature review of randomized controlled trials
This is a critical appraisal of a non-systematic review of randomized trials of video games for improving health.
| 0 CommentsWhy comparisons must address genuine uncertainties
Too much research is done when there are no genuine uncertainties about treatment effects. This is unethical, unscientific, and wasteful.
| 0 CommentsSurrogate markers may not tell the whole story
A webpage explaining the limitations of using surrogate outcome markers in clinical research.
| 0 CommentsWhy treatment comparisons are essential
Formal comparisons are required to assess treatment effects and to take account of the natural course of health problems.
| 0 CommentsWhy treatment uncertainties should be addressed
Ignoring uncertainties about the effects of treatments has led to avoidable suffering and deaths.
| 0 CommentsMotivational Deficiency Disorder – a satirical look at disease mongering
Ray Moynihan’s 4-min video on ‘Motivational Deficiency Disorder’, illustrating ‘disease-mongering’.
| 0 CommentsMaking Sense of Screening
Screening tests can cause harm. This guide helps you to make sense of claims about screening for health conditions.
| 0 CommentsWhat are systematic reviews?
A 3-min video by Jack Nunn and The Cochrane Consumers and Communication group for people unfamiliar with the concept of systematic reviews.
| 0 CommentsInteractive PowerPoint Presentation about Clinical Trials
An interactive Powerpoint presentation for people thinking about participating in a clinical trial or interested in learning about them.
| 0 CommentsTesting Treatments
Testing Treatments is a book to help the public understand why fair tests of treatments are needed, what they are, and how to use them.
| 0 CommentsAnnals Graphic Medicine: How screening is portrayed in the media
A cartoon series addressing the theme "Earlier is not necessarily better".
| 0 CommentsEffectiveness Delusions
Cherry picking the results of people in sub-groups can be misleading.
| 0 CommentsCecil and those pellets again…
If possible, participants in clinical trials should not know which treatment they are receiving.
| 0 CommentsCatch 22 – clinical trials edition
Fair comparisons of treatments in animals or highly selected groups of people may not be relevant.
| 0 CommentsHouse Calls Please
Beware reliance on 'experience' without reference to relevant evidence.
| 0 CommentsComposite Outcomes
Fair comparisons of treatments should measure important outcomes and avoid dependence on surrogate outcome measures.
| 0 CommentsBiomarkers unlimited
Fair comparisons of treatments should measure important outcomes and avoid dependence on surrogate outcome measures.
| 0 CommentsDepartment of Epidemiology
Presenting relative measures of treatment effects without presenting absolute measures can be misleading.
| 0 CommentsGoldilocks
Cartoon and blog about how poorly performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses may misrepresent the truth.
| 0 CommentsHouse of tottering cards
Poorly performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses may misrepresent the truth.
| 0 CommentsCherry Picking
Cherry-picking results that only support your own conclusion may mean ignoring important evidence that refutes a treatment claim.
| 0 CommentsSecret life of trials
The results of single comparisons of treatments can be misleading.
| 0 CommentsDesert Island Medical Journal
Small studies with few outcome events are usually not informative and can be misleading.
| 0 CommentsForest Plot Trilogy
Synthesising the results of similar but separate fair comparisons (meta-analysis) may help by yielding statistically more reliable estimates
| 0 CommentsSignificant Others
Statistical significance does not always mean meaningful or practical significance.
| 0 CommentsFalse Precision
The use of p-values to indicate the probability of something occurring by chance may be misleading.
| 0 CommentsPersonal “No Worse”
People with vested interests may use misleading statistics to support claims about the effects of new treatments.
| 0 CommentsLisa luxuriant hair
If possible, participants in clinical trials should not know which treatment they are receiving.
| 0 CommentsSuzie in despair
Apart from the treatments being compared, the comparison groups need to be similar.
| 0 CommentsWorld without bias
Overcoming biases is difficult but important. Treatment comparisons must be fair.
| 0 CommentsAvoid despair about biases
People who choose to ignore biases may do themselves and others harm.
| 0 CommentsDoes it work?
People with vested interests may use misleading statistics to support claims about the efects of new treatments.
| 0 CommentsThousand dollar placebo
People with vested interests may take advantage of peoples' fears or hopes..
| 0 CommentsPromising treatments
'Promising' treatments greatly outnumber actual advances in treatment.
| 0 CommentsRight to remain anxious
Earlier testing is not always better, and can lead to overdiagnosis, overtreatment and anxiety.
| 0 CommentsDe-awareness day
Earlier testing is not always better, and can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
| 0 CommentsAlicia
Earlier testing is not always better, and can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
| 0 CommentsPeer-Review
Even quality control steps, such as peer-review, can be affected by conflicts of interest.
| 0 CommentsGertrud
Exaggeration and hopes or fears can lead to unrealistic expectations about treatment effects.
| 0 Comments