PEDIATRICS Vol. 95 No. 3 March 1995, pp. 436
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by L., J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by L., J. F.

HOW TO PUT HYPED STUDY RESULTS UNDER A MICROSCOPE

J. F. L. MD

Every week medical science makes headlines with a promising new study or cure. Scientific reputations, corporate fortunes and a tide of human hopes rise and fall on such news. Studies can also stoke the general debate on this or that health benefit or risk.

Often it's hard to tell ephemeral findings from epochal breakthroughs...

A major problem arises when "things get taken out of context," says Oxford University professor Richard Peto.

When researchers tease out selective results from a small subgroup, funny results can pop up. You can prove just about anything by slicing and dicing the data. Here is Peto's Proof:

Taking a landmark study of 17 000 patients that proved aspirin as an effective treatment for heart attack, Dr. Peto shows you can reach a vastly different conclusion if you simply separate patients by their astrological sign. "Aspirin appeared totally ineffective for those born under Libra or Gemini," he concludes.