Research losing quality – Large defects when Publishing The Corona-crisis presents scientists with a Dilemma: as soon as Possible with the best possible researched, but the hustle and bustle leads to shock to fail, as now shows.Werner Bartens7 Kommentare7Das renowned medical journal “The Lancet” has resulted in the publication about the effect of the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine to patients with Covid-19 back. Screenshot: The Lancet
It is a Bang for the science: After massive criticism, two of the world’s prestigious medical Journals, “The Lancet” and the “New England Journal of Medicine”, publications have been withdrawn. In the “the Lancet”, was described the effect of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in patients with Covid-19 and a twice as high mortality compared to control groups have been claiming. In the “New England Journal of Medicine” researchers were not come to the conclusion that the blood pressure-lowering drug of type ACE-inhibitors increase the risk for Covid-19.
For both of the posts had raised a service provider by the name of Surgisphere data and using “Big Data” is evaluated. Soon the doubts about the information grew up in the “Lancet” about the alleged 15’000 and 80’000 subjects in the control group. Surgisphere, the chief Sapan Desai has been operating as a Co-author of the article, was the patient data from 671 clinics on six continents.
competition among journals
In an open letter, 146 Doctors, scientists and statisticians in ten had “serious concerns” to the authors of the article, and the publisher addressed. After Surgisphere wanted to neither the external reviewers nor the Co-authors of raw data available, were withdrawn from the studies, a few days ago. In the articles more death, for example, for Australia cases from the clinics listed, as there were reported. And for Africa, Details from electronic have been described in the medical records of Thousands of patients, which appeared to be due to the local infrastructure is unreliable. “It is very sobering that these inconsistencies are not noticed, neither the Peer Review nor in the editorial process of the journals,” says Jörg Meerpohl from the Institute for evidence in medicine, the University of Freiburg.
“Here, I would have expected 200 percent of care.”
Jörg meerpohl, Institute for evidence in medicine, University of Freiburg
Just in case of so high-ranking journals, that should not happen. “Particularly dramatic, I think, that this happened in the case studies, from which it was clear that they have a great importance for the Management of the pandemic. Here, I would have expected 200 percent of care.” The threat posed by the Virus promotes the Extreme, this is also true for the specialised journalism. Probably it was never so easy as during the pandemic, to publish in prestigious journals. Article with the keywords Sars-CoV-2 or Covid-19 are currently being released quickly. Each journal wants to contribute its part to the growth of knowledge. In addition, you are Preprint in competition with the servers on which our rough drafts are not yet peer-reviewed article accessible.
While the Corona pandemic, the Dilemma is particularly large: The world is waiting with hundreds of thousands dead and an unclear duration of the disease, in urgent need of new insights to Covid-19. On the other hand, incorrect results to throw back the research, favor the wrong political decisions or endanger people.
The Drama in “the Lancet” and the “New England Journal of Medicine” is a Disaster for the science with non-abschätzbarem damage.”
Gerd Antes, longtime Director of the Cochrane centre in Freiburg
As a response to the Lancet study, WHO is a study part, in the hydroxy-chloroquine in Covid-19 tested had been exposed to should be. Now, the study is resumed. “The Drama “in the Lancet, and the “New England Journal of Medicine” is a Disaster for the science with non-abschätzbarem damage”, writes Gerd Antes, longtime Director of the Cochrane centre in Freiburg, the rating of the quality of medical studies. “The current situation does not seem to be reason enough to take the basic principles of science and research so seriously.”
In the criticism of the review process by peers, “Peer Review” is called. Good journals require that submitted reviewed studies by experts, evaluated, and criticism will be forwarded to the authors of the course. Usually this is done anonymously, increasingly open to the reviewer to be tried method. Only when the objections were taken into account and the article is revised, it can be published. “The high cost is used, poor data quality and fraud in the science counter. It is laborious to verify the authenticity of data. To do this, plausibility checks and source data verification to include,” says Stefan Lange from the Institute for quality and efficiency in health care. “Something like this is in the context of a voluntary Peer review only approach way. Fraud is discover this.”
in Addition, larger and larger amounts of data make it difficult to control. “It is in the current case, in order to aggregate data from different study centres. Apparently, three of the four authors had not even access to the primary data,” says Bernd Pulverer, editor of “the EMBO Journal”. “Journals expect explicitly that all the authors have analysed the data and so the quality of the published data. Journals have to trust the authors that this is not the case.”
The Peer Review System may improve the quality of studies, but has defects. “Reviewers can never be “on the scene” and are, therefore, limited in the location, error, or deliberate to detect fraud,” says Serge Horbach, of the Radboud University Nijmegen. Multiple Tests showed, that a reviewer never discover all of the errors in studies. “The process learns in the pandemic, a stress test due to the large speed, with the countless publications assessed to be,” says infectious disease Loge, Gerd Fätkenheuer of the University of Cologne. “A part of the studies is already available on Preprint servers prior to light, and the subject of wide debates, which increases the pressure on appraisers to continue.” In addition, the assessment was time-consuming and will done by the experts, in addition to the regular work. All of this could lead to reviewers that dot major problems.
there was an error in the data collection, as you will be presumed to be the ominous provider Surgisphere, were evident in the review process difficult. Preprint Server, on which the Corona-crisis, many scientists publish, are currently being debated. The idea comes from physics and mathematics and was developed as a complement to well-established journals. Researchers wanted to discuss on these platforms – unnoticed by the Public results, even if they were still preliminary. The differences in the assessment could not be more extreme.
“You can have everything: the quality is in free fall, and up to the Golden future by the exemption from Peer Review”, observed Gerd Antes. “As a niche model, it has had its Benefits, but this “peace is lost, and the form of Publication completely overwhelmed, as well as what is happening to the children study by Drosten show.”
there was an error in studies do not mean, incidentally, that the opposite would be correct. Of the Antimalarials hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine has been known for years that they cause in rare cases, serious heart rhythm disorders. A Benefit Covid-19, however, is not occupied, even if this is repeatedly claimed to be. The unproven recommendation from Donald Trump, to take the funds, has already caused some confusion, however, in the context of his other remarks arranged. Leading journals publish the most important medical questions of the time immature article, however, is a serious setback.
comments please Log in to comment