» Articles » PMID: 16060722

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Overview
Journal PLoS Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2005 Aug 3
PMID 16060722
Citations 2420
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Citing Articles

Toward Power Analysis for Partial Least Squares-Based Methods.

Andreella A, Finos L, Scarpa B, Stocchero M Biom J. 2025; 67(2):e70050.

PMID: 40079652 PMC: 11905696. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.70050.


Structuring data analysis projects in the Open Science era with Kerblam!.

Visentin L, Munaron L, Ruffinatti F F1000Res. 2025; 14:88.

PMID: 40047014 PMC: 11880754. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.157325.1.


The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.

Klebel T, Traag V, Grypari I, Stoy L, Ross-Hellauer T R Soc Open Sci. 2025; 12(3):241248.

PMID: 40046663 PMC: 11879623. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.241248.


A Subjective and Intuitive Approach to Rapid, Holistic Assessment of Natural Ecosystem Integrity Across a Community-Managed Conservation Area in Southern Tanzania.

Duggan L, Walsh K, Tarimo L, Kavishe D, Crego R, Elisa M Ecol Evol. 2025; 15(3):e70872.

PMID: 40034427 PMC: 11872596. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70872.


The effects of challenge and threat states on performance outcomes: An updated review and meta-analysis of recent findings.

Hase A, Nietschke M, Kloskowski M, Szymanski K, Moore L, Jamieson J EXCLI J. 2025; 24:151-176.

PMID: 40027878 PMC: 11869992. DOI: 10.17179/excli2024-7995.


References
1.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg L, Stott P, Kyle G . Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom. 1998; 67(4-5):194-201. DOI: 10.1159/000012281. View

2.
Taubes G . Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995; 269(5221):164-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7618077. View

3.
Golub T, Slonim D, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, Mesirov J . Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science. 1999; 286(5439):531-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5439.531. View

4.
Ioannidis J, Evans S, Gotzsche P, ONeill R, Altman D, Schulz K . Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(10):781-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009. View

5.
Ioannidis J . Microarrays and molecular research: noise discovery?. Lancet. 2005; 365(9458):454-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17878-7. View