View Full Version : "Hundreds of studies" phrase


userguide
07-26-17, 06:56 PM
I see this line all the time. There are literally hundreds of studies on ADHD medication.

Maybe there are.

However, I 've never seen a list of those 100 studies.

Maybe I never searched for more than 5.

Is there a website with a list of those 100 studies with dates, names and short conclusion ?

What if there are 20 decent studies, and all the rest are metastudies and metametastudies and "studies" ?

namazu
07-27-17, 04:20 AM
Thousands (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=adhd+medication)! ;) Try PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) for lists and abstracts (and, if you're lucky, links to free full text).

I agree with your broader point that the fact that there are studies doesn't always mean that they are good or relevant studies.

And publication bias (especially in favor of studies that show positive results) is a real thing. Registration of clinical trials may help somewhat with that, but change is slow and in addition to vested financial or personal interests, there's some inertia to overcome on the part of scientists and journals who like strong, positive, new results as well.

All of that said, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's some really good research out there. Learning to be an informed consumer (of both scientific journalism and actual science) is challenging, but worthwhile.

userguide
07-27-17, 01:05 PM
"Thousands and thousands" of studies! :)

I was always too lazy to inquire, and a coffee helped this time. I did a small metaanalysis :)

Take year 2005.

If you run "adhd ritalin" query, you get 180 results for that year.
(This include, by the index design, term "metylphenidate" and the likes)

However, when you exclude terms "rat", "animal", and "review", you get only 118.

Out of those, only about 55 was actual research on efficacy/mechanism of action/treatment outcomes/etc.
Some of them seemed "multiplied" - the authors and original date/publisher were "clustered".
(That is, of course, my arbitrary estimation - say, researcher's input ;) )


So yes, there are hundreds and hundreds of them. Thanks for motivation namazu.

By the way, If I was a 'certified' researcher, would that qualify for an official "metaanalysis study on the efficacy of research on adhd medication and their influence on patient compliance using public internet databases [put more long words here]" ?




And publication bias (especially in favor of studies that show positive results) is a real thing. Registration of clinical trials may help somewhat with that, but change is slow and in addition to vested financial or personal interests, there's some inertia to overcome on the part of scientists and journals who like strong, positive, new results as well.


What kind of registration ? How that could help ?
I didn't know they crave for positive results so much. Actually you can massage any study to seem to show something new and exciting, can't you ? It's a matter of good methodology and a bit of marketing.



And BTW, almost every health topic query returns hundreds and thousands of results.

So ADHD medication is not "one of the best researched topic in medicine", as I often read :)

Lunacie
07-27-17, 03:32 PM
In many cases there have been meta studies done. That's how they confirm or
rule out the findings in the first study.

Dr. Russell Barkley has considered all the research on adhd et.al. and he
summarizes the conclusion in his videos and book.

sarahsweets
07-27-17, 04:08 PM
Isnt how often the studies are cited relevant to the quality and accuracy?

userguide
07-28-17, 09:51 AM
Isnt how often the studies are cited relevant to the quality and accuracy?

In theory it is. In practice, many researchers try hard to "boost" their citation indeces.

There are many other factors that influence what is a hot ting to cite and what is not.

I am being optimistic though.