Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Lancet was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, an English surgeon who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet (scalpel). [3] According to BBC, the journal was initially considered to be radical following its founding.
The observational interpretation fallacy is the cognitive bias where correlations identified in observational studies are erroneously interpreted as evidence of causality. This misinterpretation can significantly influence clinical guidelines and healthcare practices, potentially compromising patient safety and the efficient allocation of ...
The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed "new syndrome" of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an "apparent precipitating event". But in fact:
Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 29 November 2024. "MMR vaccine fraud" redirects here. For more about the The Lancet article that was published in 1998, see Lancet MMR autism fraud. False claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism Part of a series on Alternative medicine General information Alternative medicine History ...
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the average statistical power of a study in many scientific fields is well below the benchmark level of 0.8. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] Given the realities of bias, low statistical power, and a small number of true hypotheses, Ioannidis concludes that the majority of studies in a variety of scientific fields ...
In September 2021, The Lancet published a letter from a group of 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists saying that more evidence is needed before any definitive conclusions on the origins question and calling for further investigations into a lab leak. The letter stressed that "Research-related hypotheses are not ...
Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. [11] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials can provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of particular treatments in given scenarios, which may, in turn, be incorporated into medical guidelines or institutional ...