Researchers rewrote study abstracts to strip out the causal wording, and about half the readers still described the findings as one thing causing another — with the wording left in and a note attached saying the design could not establish cause, 64 percent described it that way
Source ↗
👁 0
💬 0
One of the cases the paper opens with is hormone therapy. Analyses from the Nurses’ Health Study linked postmenopausal estrogen therapy to reduced cardiovascular risk; randomized trials later showed the opposite, with benefits limited to younger women. Nobody had faked a number. The data had been read as an answer to a question it was never built to answer.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has now put a size on how often that reading gets invited. In a paper published in Nature Hum
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has now put a size on how often that reading gets invited. In a paper published in Nature Hum
Comments (0)