[Citation misuse and its effects on public health].

In order to effectively contribute to scientific knowledge, biomedical observations have to be validated and debated by scientists in the relevant field. Along this debate that mainly takes place in the scientific literature, citation of previous studies plays a major role. However, only a few academic studies have quantitatively evaluated the suitability and accuracy of scientific citations.

Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences.

Most experts in the field of psychiatry recognize that neuroscience advances have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The main message delivered to laypeople, however, is that mental disorders are brain diseases cured by scientifically designed medications. Here we describe how this misleading message is generated.

Do newspapers preferentially cover biomedical studies involving national scientists?

News value theory rates geographical proximity as an important factor in the process of issue selection by journalists. But does this apply to science journalism? Previous observational studies investigating whether newspapers preferentially cover scientific studies involving national scientists have generated conflicting answers. Here we used a database of 123 biomedical studies, 113 of them involving at least one research team working in eight countries (Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains.

Studies with low statistical power increase the likelihood that a statistically significant finding represents a false positive result. We conducted a review of meta-analyses of studies investigating the association of biological, environmental or cognitive parameters with neurological, psychiatric and somatic diseases, excluding treatment studies, in order to estimate the average statistical power across these domains. Taking the effect size indicated by a meta-analysis as the best estimate of the likely true effect size, and assuming a threshold for declaring statistical significance of 5%, we found that approximately 50% of studies have statistical power in the 0-10% or 11-20% range, well below the minimum of 80% that is often considered conventional.

Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers.

Objective: To investigate the replication validity of biomedical association studies covered by newspapers.

Methods: We used a database of 4723 primary studies included in 306 meta-analysis articles. These studies associated a risk factor with a disease in three biomedical domains, psychiatry, neurology and four somatic diseases.

Replication Validity of Initial Association Studies: A Comparison between Psychiatry, Neurology and Four Somatic Diseases.

Context: There are growing concerns about effect size inflation and replication validity of association studies, but few observational investigations have explored the extent of these problems.

Objective: Using meta-analyses to measure the reliability of initial studies and explore whether this varies across biomedical domains and study types (cognitive/behavioral, brain imaging, genetic and "others").

Methods: We analyzed 663 meta-analyses describing associations between markers or risk factors and 12 pathologies within three biomedical domains (psychiatry, neurology and four somatic diseases).