EXAMPLE 1 Missing details

Papers reporting scientific research are supposed to be short, with no extra baggage. Brevity can allow the researchers to avoid complete honesty about their data. Did they choose their subjects in a biased way? Did they report data on only some of their subjects? Did they try several statistical analyses and report only the ones that supported what the researchers hoped to find? The statistician John Bailar screened more than 4000 medical papers in more than a decade as consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine. He says, “When it came to the statistical review, it was often clear that critical information was lacking, and the gaps nearly always had the practical effect of making the authors’ conclusions look stronger than they should have.” The situation is no doubt worse in fields that screen published work less carefully.