Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Commentary

Learning from negative findings

Author: Mark I. Taragin

Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

A recent IJHPR article by Azulay et al. found no association between the patient activation measure (PAM) and adherence to colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test result. This commentary will use that article as a jumping-off point to discuss why studies sometimes get negative results and how one should interpret such results. It will explore why the Azulay study had negative findings and describe what can be learnt from this study, despite the negative findings.
It is important to publish studies with negative findings to know which interventions do not have an effect, avoid publication bias, allow robust meta-analyses, and to encourage sub-analyses to generate new hypotheses.
To support these goals authors must submit articles with negative findings with sufficient detail to support the above aims and perform sub-analyses to identify additional relationships that merit study.
The commentary will discuss the importance of publishing articles in which the hypothesis is not proven and demonstrate how such articles should be written to maximize learning from their negative findings.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Axelson O. Negative and non-positive epidemiological studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004;17(1):115–21.PubMed Axelson O. Negative and non-positive epidemiological studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004;17(1):115–21.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Hanley JA, Lippman-Hand A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA. 1983;249(13):1743–5.CrossRef Hanley JA, Lippman-Hand A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA. 1983;249(13):1743–5.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Moher D, Cook DJ, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.CrossRef Moher D, Cook DJ, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRef Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yarborough M. Openness in science is key to keeping public trust. Nature. 2014;515(7527):313.CrossRef Yarborough M. Openness in science is key to keeping public trust. Nature. 2014;515(7527):313.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S2–23.CrossRef Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S2–23.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, et al. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138.CrossRef Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, et al. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Learning from negative findings
Author
Mark I. Taragin
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2045-4015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-019-0309-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2019 Go to the issue