The Journal of Painfully Obvious, Common Sense and Useless Findings

[Anasazi23]

I feel as though I'm seeing more and more (amazingly) headline-producing research findings that to me, appear to be a wasteful use of research dollars, and at best, are confirming what would otherwise be obvious to anyone who might take the time to think about the topic.

The frequency of these "findings" appear all around, and surprisingly, nobody seems to mind.

Now I know that someone will make the immediate argument that "all research is good" or "the more the better" or, "who the heck am I to determine what's 'good' research." However, I must assert that the vaulted keepers of the journals (i.e. the reviewers) are allowing stuff in that decades ago, would have been thrown in the trash.

I have my own opinion that is of course based in conspiracy theory. Namely, that these "obvious" research findings are to be used for future public policy decisions and granting of research dollars and public programs. This, and the fact that academicians protect themselves by endosing and promoting each others' research by publishing it and referring to it. It's a microcosm of financial existence that's reliant only upon itself. Sort of like the existential question, "would baseball exist if there were no fans?"

Until I get bored with it, or until I've made my point, I'd like to present some of these. The majority of them will likely come from the APA email daily newsletter that I receive. Feel free to criticize my questioning of these groundbreaking results.

In no particular order:

APA Headlines:

Study measures impact of adult AD/HD on productivity.
In continuing coverage from yesterday's edition of Headlines, the BBC (5/27) reported that adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity (AD/HD) disorder perform "fewer days of work per year than people who do not have the condition," according to a study published on Tuesday in the online edition of the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
According to HealthDay (5/27, Mozes), "Altogether, between three...and four percent of adults worldwide have AD/HD," the study data indicated. Study author Ron Kessler, Ph.D., of Harvard University, and director of the World Health Organization's (WHO) World Mental Health Survey Consortium, and colleagues, "conducted country-by-country AD/HD diagnostic assessments on more than 7,000 employed and self-employed workers between the ages of 18 and 44" in "Belgium, Columbia, France, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. All the participants were also asked to describe their work performance over the prior month." Approximately "3.5 percent of those interviewed had AD/HD," and "[a]mong Americans, the rate rose to 4.5 percent, Kessler noted."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

When attentional deficits or hyperactivity are severely enough to affect peoples social or occupational functioning when they are well into their 30's and 40's...I think one needs to consider alternate explanations for the disturbance. That would be my 2 cents.

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

I feel as though I'm seeing more and more (amazingly) headline-producing research findings that to me, appear to be a wasteful use of research dollars, and at best, are confirming what would otherwise be obvious to anyone who might take the time to think about the topic.

The frequency of these "findings" appear all around, and surprisingly, nobody seems to mind.

Now I know that someone will make the immediate argument that "all research is good" or "the more the better" or, "who the heck am I to determine what's 'good' research." However, I must assert that the vaulted keepers of the journals (i.e. the reviewers) are allowing stuff in that decades ago, would have been thrown in the trash.

I have my own opinion that is of course based in conspiracy theory. Namely, that these "obvious" research findings are to be used for future public policy decisions and granting of research dollars and public programs. This, and the fact that academicians protect themselves by endosing and promoting each others' research by publishing it and referring to it. It's a microcosm of financial existence that's reliant only upon itself. Sort of like the existential question, "would baseball exist if there were no fans?"

Until I get bored with it, or until I've made my point, I'd like to present some of these. The majority of them will likely come from the APA email daily newsletter that I receive. Feel free to criticize my questioning of these groundbreaking results.

In no particular order:

APA Headlines:

But, who would read the Journal of Occupational Medicine or whatever it is called? I guess, the fact that no self-respecting psych journal published this..hmmm..high science, already speaks for itself.

I agree, the DUH factor for that one was pretty high.

How about this one?http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20070521/darth-vaders-psyche-what-went-wrong

 

[Anasazi23]

APA Headlines:

Research suggests level of depression may dictate nature of bias in self-perception among young adult patients with dysphoria.
MedWire (6/18, Davenport) reports that "[p]atients with dysphoria have a negative bias in their self-perception, while those with low depressive symptoms have a positive bias in self-perception," according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Sarah Whitton, Ph.D., of the Harvard Medical School, and colleagues, examined "74 psychiatric hospitalized adolescents with an average age of 14.1 years, and 59 mentally healthy controls with an average age of 14.5 years. The participants were assessed approximately 11 years after the original assessment, at an average age of 25.4 years." The researchers found that "significant differences" existed "between psychiatric hospitalized patients and healthy controls in terms of self-rated social competence, peer-rated social competence, and depressive symptoms." Moreover, "higher depressive symptoms correlated with more negative discrepancy scores," whereas "lower depressive symptoms were linked to more positive discrepancy scores, suggesting a more positive view of the self than the self is viewed by peers."

More genius from Harvard.

 

[Anasazi23]

Study indicates working overtime may raise risk for anxiety, depression.
In continuing coverage from previous editions of Headlines, HealthDay (6/19, McKeever) reported that working overtime appears to raise the risk "for developing anxiety and depression," according to a study published in the Jun. issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. After examining data on "1,350 overtime workers and 9,000 with normal work hours in Norway," researchers found that "[m]en who worked 40 hours a week or less had a nine percent 'possible' depression score on standard screening questionnaires, while 12.5 percent of their counterparts who worked overtime showed signs of depression and anxiety." In contrast, "the possible depression rate increased from seven...to 11 percent" in women. Moreover, "anxiety and depression rates were higher among less-skilled workers, and those with lower incomes."

More!

 

[OldPsychDoc]

APA Headlines:


More genius from Harvard.

Hey, it takes a lot of hard work to live up to those US News rankings!

 

[Faebinder]

Sounds like someone is trying to fullfill their research requirement to graduate.

 

[HoboCommander]

i don't think that's true. most med students i've met seem to have ADHD and i'm sure as doctors they will work more than the vast majority of people

 

[erg923]

i don't think that's true. most med students i've met seem to have ADHD and i'm sure as doctors they will work more than the vast majority of people

Most? Can you say availability bias? Remember, your personal experiences are not empirical studies of prevalence rates in a population. Regardless, if one has severe ADHD and is able to make it through med school anyway, the same strengths and compensatory factors that allowed you to accomplish this feat are likely the same ones that will contribute to you being able to work more than the "average" person with AD/HD. High intelligence found in most physicians is probbly one of the biggest factors that allows them to compensate for any ADHD-related attentional deficits that could interfere with their training. I doubt that study had any physicians as subjects.

 

[sunlioness]

i don't think that's true. most med students i've met seem to have ADHD and i'm sure as doctors they will work more than the vast majority of people

I don't think it's true that most med students have ADHD. I haven't seen any studies looking at that, but in my own anecdotal experience the very few I've known who have been formally diagnosed with it (and who shared their dx w/ me) tended to need longer than 4 years to get through med school.

 

[Anasazi23]

Childhood abuse, family history of suicidality may worsen course of bipolar disorder, research suggests.
MedWire (6/3, Davenport) reports that patients with bipolar disorder who have "a family history of suicidality, and experience of physical and/or sexual abuse during childhood," may "have an increased risk for impaired disease course and suicidality," according to a study published in the July issue of the Journal of Affective Disorders. Maria Oquendo, M.D., of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and colleagues, examined data on "168 bipolar disorder patients, using a series of instruments to measure demographic and clinical variables, as well as family history of suicide, a history of childhood physical or sexual abuse, and suicide behavior." Of this group, "78 patients had neither a family history of suicidal behavior, nor a personal history of childhood abuse (NONE), while 68 patients had one or other of the risk factors (ONE), and 20 had both risk factors (BOTH)." The investigators found that participants "in the BOTH and ONE groups had significantly higher rates of previous suicide attempts than those in the NONE group." In addition, "BOTH patients had significantly higher rates of substance use and borderline personality disorders."

Hmm....fascinating and unexpected.

 

[Anasazi23]

From physorg.com....

Heavy drinking, conduct disorder linked to high-risk sexual behavior
Medicine & Health / Other

Psychiatry researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have found that a clinical diagnosis of alcohol dependence in young adults is associated with having a high number of sex partners.

"Some participants in the study reported 50 or 100 partners, and research shows — and common sense tells you — that the more sex partners you have, the more likely you'll encounter someone with an STD," says first author Patricia Cavazos-Rehg, Ph.D., research instructor in the Department of Psychiatry. "Chances also increase for unintended pregnancies and other health complications."

Whoa, whoa...slow down. So ............the more sex partners you have. Hmm....lemme get this straight. The - lower? No...no, that's not right. It must be the higher your chance of having an STD and pregnancy?

I need to sit back on this one. Hard to take in.

 

[Anasazi23]

From sciencedaily.com

Ecstasy causes depression in pigs
General Science
Danish scientific experiments where Ecstasy was adminstered to pigs may help to explain depression in humans abusing the drug.

The three-year study conducted at the PET Center at Arhus Hospital in Denmark showed the recreational drug caused depression in laboratory pigs, reported The Copenhagen Post Friday.

The scientists injected pigs with varying doses of Ecstasy to study the effect the drug has on the pigs' brains.

Pigs' brains are similar to human brains.

"We have proven that Ecstasy releases seratonin in the brain, which we know plays a role in depression," said Dr. Aage Kristian Olsen at Arhus Hospital. "Ecstasy users risk depression given its long-term effects on the brain."

The scientists noted that pigs on Ecstasy lost control of their body temperature, an effect also seen in human overdose fatalities, Olsen said.

And how, exactly did they determine that the pigs were depressed? No, not through the "Statistical Worksheet for INvoluntary Euthymia" (S.W.I.N.E), but through the fact that the pigs were unable to control or regulate their body temperature, of course!

 

[Anasazi23]

Last one for tonight: from http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200801072/

Teens Find The Benefits Of Not Having Sex Decline With Age
The percentage of teens who report solely positive benefits from not having sex declines precipitously with age, according to a new study by scientists at the University of California, San Francisco.
The finding suggests that adults should give teens guidance in coping with both the negative outcomes of engaging in sexual behaviors, and the negative experiences of refraining from them, the researchers say.

The study, reported in the January 2008 issue of the “American Journal of Public Health,” studied teens from the fall of their ninth-grade year through the spring of their tenth-grade year.

Among teens who remained sexually inexperienced during the study, the percentage reporting only positive experiences from refraining from sex fell from 46 percent to 24 percent.

Among teens who were sexually experienced at the outset of the study, the percentage reporting only positive experiences from refraining fell from 37 percent to 8 percent.

The greatest change in attitudes was among teens who became sexually experienced during the study period. For those teens, the percentage who said that not having sex resulted in only positive experiences dropped from 40 percent to 6 percent.

A comparison between the groups was also illuminating. Those adolescents who were sexually experienced from the outset were more likely than those who remained sexually inexperienced to value refraining from sex (odds ratio 3.1 to 1.6).

“When we encourage teens to abstain from sex or delay becoming sexually active, we frequently over-focus on the health risks, such as unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections,” said senior study author Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, a professor of pediatrics in the Division of Adolescent Medicine at UCSF."

What would you rather focus on?

So, you mean to say that the longer a teen goes without sex, the more they want it? I'd like to see this replicated. This is flabbergasting.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Is anyone else concerned that Sazi has spent his Saturday night posting these things?

 

[Faebinder]

nah, must be on call and bored trying to figure out his graduation project and when he came across the painfully obvious lot... which btw, is cracking me up.

I'm not seeing the names of the journals. I'm totally curious now where this mess is print. I'll investigate later.

 

[Anasazi23]

Hi folks,

Thankfully, I'm neither on call (done with that after PGY-III ) nor looking for senior research projects. Also thankfully, our program does not require any such thing.

Just here playing Lord of the Rings Online, while looking through my old emails and scanning through my mental health research feeds. This stuff has been bugging me for a while, and I want it to bug other people too so that I don't suffer alone. .

 

[billypilgrim37]

nah, must be on call and bored trying to figure out his graduation project and when he came across the painfully obvious lot... which btw, is cracking me up.

Well, much of this research is more about quantifying the obvious, which is pretty necessary when you design interventions that cost money. Everybody knows x is true, but knowing how much x is true is useful for deciding how much money to spend on programs addressing these issues.

Which doesn't mean they aren't still funny :0)

The ADHD-one in point though is representative of all the research that tries to say "look, it SAVES MONEY if you treat these diseases." Any time a study addresses productivity, work lost, etc., there's a very clear agenda that demonstrating benefit to an employer justifies employers making sure those conditions are covered/addressed in insurance policies and such.

And if everything were really this obvious, we wouldn't have two political parties, would we? There are plenty of things I think are obvious, and plenty of things Sazi thinks are obvious, but I bet there are plenty of those things we'd disagree about.

 

[Shalom77]

When attentional deficits or hyperactivity are severely enough to affect peoples social or occupational functioning when they are well into their 30's and 40's...I think one needs to consider alternate explanations for the disturbance. That would be my 2 cents.

I disagree with this. It's attitudes like that that spur this kind of research to counter that misconception. After all it wasn't that long ago that people thought that kids "outgrew" adhd. Hence studies to show that no - not only do people not outgrow it but having ADD continues to affect their occupational and social function into adulthood. In order to get funding to improve a problem ie better treatments for aduld ADD - you have to show it is a problem. (And usually that it's a problem that costly to society in terms of job loss/loss productivity, etc.) That's one reasons these types of studies get published.

 

[Faebinder]

I dont think there is enough outcome research in the world. Really. The more outcome the better. Problem is getting a negative outcome to be published.

 

[HCE]

I feel as though I'm seeing more and more (amazingly) headline-producing research findings that to me, appear to be a wasteful use of research dollars, and at best, are confirming what would otherwise be obvious to anyone who might take the time to think about the topic.

The frequency of these "findings" appear all around, and surprisingly, nobody seems to mind.

Now I know that someone will make the immediate argument that "all research is good" or "the more the better" or, "who the heck am I to determine what's 'good' research." However, I must assert that the vaulted keepers of the journals (i.e. the reviewers) are allowing stuff in that decades ago, would have been thrown in the trash.

I have my own opinion that is of course based in conspiracy theory. Namely, that these "obvious" research findings are to be used for future public policy decisions and granting of research dollars and public programs. This, and the fact that academicians protect themselves by endosing and promoting each others' research by publishing it and referring to it. It's a microcosm of financial existence that's reliant only upon itself. Sort of like the existential question, "would baseball exist if there were no fans?"

Anasazi: I have my own opinion which is, of course, also based in conspiracy theory. I disagree that all research is good. As in "the other thread", my conspiracy theory revolves around Big Pharma rather than Big Brother. As long as the journals and others continue to close their eyes to the ghostwriting of so much "research" by marketing departments of Big Pharma, you'll continue to see what appears to be benign crap being published that is actually setting the groundwork for a later developed blockbuster drug that is "well-supported by dozens of clinical trials and research articles."

Hell, even that despised group called lawyers are not allowed to handle cases in which they have a financial interest. Doctors and others should not be allowed to put their name on crap written by marketing departments of Big Pharma.

 

[Neuronix]

And how, exactly did they determine that the pigs were depressed? No, not through the "Statistical Worksheet for INvoluntary Euthymia" (S.W.I.N.E), but through the fact that the pigs were unable to control or regulate their body temperature, of course!

I work on imaging of pigs and I've met a few members of the Arhus PET group at a conference so this intrigued me a bit. My guess is the reported work is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415793
A PET study of effects of chronic 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy") on serotonin markers in Göttingen minipig brain.

They don't actually claim this to be a model of depression in their paper. It makes me wonder how the news media gets some of these ideas. Did one of the authors say it to a reporter and the reporter ran a story about it? Were they trying to sell it as depression at one point? I think many cases of stupid sounding research is more the reporting of the research than the actual research.

The S.W.I.N.E. thing is cute though. That should go into the Veterinary Edition of the DSM V.

 

[Neuronix]

However, I must assert that the vaulted keepers of the journals (i.e. the reviewers) are allowing stuff in that decades ago, would have been thrown in the trash.

I 100% disagree with this. I will ask you to look at old editions of Science or Nature or Cell. You could get papers in those journals many years ago that were one figure and 2 pages long. What is widely cited as the first paper for MRI (in Nature) was a guy manually turning test tubes of water in an NMR spectrometer with a linear field gradient. He showed he could differentiate the position by twirling the container of the tubes around in the gradient field with backprojection. Bam! Nobel prize! The only thing new there was twirling tubes in gradient to tell their position. I could now send an untrained undergrad to reproduce that same experiment in a few weeks. Did he actually image or attempt to image an animal? No. Did he attempt to show the difference in some disease process? No. Would you need that kind of thing to publish a new imaging modality in Nature nowadays? You freaking bet you would, and you probably still wouldn't make it into Nature.

To publish in a top journal these days you need essentially an entire thesis worth of work in most cases. You need to hit the word/page/figure limit and have many solid experiments to even attempt to publish with these journals. People spend years specifically trying to get published in those journals. The experiments themselves take months to years (knockout mice anyone) for one freaking figure. On top of all that you better show its applicability to human medicine or something else really important or you're out. Down to the lesser journals.

Even in my subfield of science, that held true 10-20 years ago. You show some equations and one figure to demonstrate that what you have works and bam, there's a full paper in an IF 5 journal. Nobody really cared what the possible implementation was. There's no way that same stuff would get in now. You need more controls, more experiements, etc etc etc... Simulate what this means for a gazillion different scenarios. Demonstrate it in 10 different ways. Did you account for x, y, z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g that people wouldn't have even thought about 10 years ago? The only place this doesn't apply is for the IF 1 journals where you can still get in fairly trivial results and 1 figure papers. I would venture to say (and hopefully without the Monty Python foot of god coming to smash me) that is where much of the old literature would end up if it was published today.

The real difference? There's a ton more investigators nowadays and not as many new journals. The unwritten rule in many labs is that you need to publish three papers during your PhD. So PhDs now take 5-6 years when they used to take 3-4. So in conclusion, I entirely disagree with your statement.

PhD in T-minus 5 months.

 

[Faebinder]

I 100% disagree with this. I will ask you to look at old editions of Science or Nature or Cell. You could get papers in those journals many years ago that were one figure and 2 pages long. What is widely cited as the first paper for MRI (in Nature) was a guy manually turning test tubes of water in an NMR spectrometer with a linear field gradient. He showed he could differentiate the position by twirling the container of the tubes around in the gradient field with backprojection. Bam! Nobel prize! The only thing new there was twirling tubes in gradient to tell their position. I could now send an untrained undergrad to reproduce that same experiment in a few weeks. Did he actually image or attempt to image an animal? No. Did he attempt to show the difference in some disease process? No. Would you need that kind of thing to publish a new imaging modality in Nature nowadays? You freaking bet you would, and you probably still wouldn't make it into Nature.

To publish in a top journal these days you need essentially an entire thesis worth of work in most cases. You need to hit the word/page/figure limit and have many solid experiments to even attempt to publish with these journals. People spend years specifically trying to get published in those journals. The experiments themselves take months to years (knockout mice anyone) for one freaking figure. On top of all that you better show its applicability to human medicine or something else really important or you're out. Down to the lesser journals.

Even in my subfield of science, that held true 10-20 years ago. You show some equations and one figure to demonstrate that what you have works and bam, there's a full paper in an IF 5 journal. Nobody really cared what the possible implementation was. There's no way that same stuff would get in now. You need more controls, more experiements, etc etc etc... Simulate what this means for a gazillion different scenarios. Demonstrate it in 10 different ways. Did you account for x, y, z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g that people wouldn't have even thought about 10 years ago? The only place this doesn't apply is for the IF 1 journals where you can still get in fairly trivial results and 1 figure papers. I would venture to say (and hopefully without the Monty Python foot of god coming to smash me) that is where much of the old literature would end up if it was published today.

The real difference? There's a ton more investigators nowadays and not as many new journals. The unwritten rule in many labs is that you need to publish three papers during your PhD. So PhDs now take 5-6 years when they used to take 3-4. So in conclusion, I entirely disagree with your statement.

PhD in T-minus 5 months.

Wow you really believe that you need more than 1 figure to get on those top journals eh? Are you including tables? You really sparkled my curiousity. The highest journal I published in so far has an IF a little over 4. There were SIX figures in the damn article and a bunch of tables.

You are definately right on the "you need controls, more experiments, etc etc". The edits are currently harsh though I dont know how harsh were they back in the days. What's funny is that many of the edits in different journals address little BS things rather the intactness of the data and methodology.

I'm attributing all this to the fact that journals need to sell and that means they need to deny articles that are not of interest.

 

[Neuronix]

Wow you really believe that you need more than 1 figure to get on those top journals eh?

I know that's sarcasm, but really, look back at the old editions of some of these journals that are top today.

http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf

Watson and Crick, DNA. Nobel prize paper. There's one figure and it's a model. One page of text.

I think today's competition just has to do with the number of papers going to the journals. I liken it to Dermatologists. Do Dermatologists need to be the top medical students? No, but how else do you pick who goes into the high demand specialty? With so many papers being written, how do you select for journal space? It comes down to a lot of arbitraryness which kinda sucks for science.

 

[Anasazi23]

Who said anything about good journals?

 

[Anasazi23]

From APA Headlines:

Researchers say medication may reduce violent behavior in some patients with schizophrenia.
HealthDay (7/3, Preidt) reported that "[t]aking prescription medications can help reduce violent behavior in some schizophrenia patients," according to a study published in the July issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry. Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D., of North Carolina's Duke University, and colleagues, examined data on "1,445 schizophrenia patients randomly selected to receive one of five antipsychotic medications: olanzapine, perphenanize, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone." The researchers found that "[p]atient violence declined significantly when patients took their medications as prescribed, but only among patients whose prior risk for violence could be linked to psychotic problems." Importantly, "[t]here was little or no improvement in a subgroup of patients with a history of childhood conduct problems who were more likely to be violent at the start of the study." In addition, the study "found that older antipsychotics are as effective as newer drugs in reducing violent behavior."

They finally got a study showing something that we've all known for years? Wow.

 

[pingouin]

Who do you think they can get to fund this study- maybe Birkenstock?

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicin...ay-Be-Dangerous-To-Health-0D-0A-0D-0A-4071-1/

 

[Anasazi23]

Yes, but did you read the highly controversial and shocking follow-up research funded in part by Steve Madden?

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Don-u2019t-Blame-the-High-Heels-2276-1/

HAHA. This is hilarious.

 

[Anasazi23]

From APA Headlines [truncated]

Researchers probe psychological burden caused by stroke.
The UPI (7/12) reported that according to researchers from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare, "the psychological burden" caused by stroke "is difficult to cope with."

They go on to say that family members of the stroke victim get sad too.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Another entry in from the British Journal of the Bleeding Obvious. Basically, antipsychotics don't fix violence if their violent tendencies aren't due to psychosis.

 

[PhD2Be]

I once read somewhere that people are at greater risk of experiencing a depressive episode following the death of a loved one.

They even had all kinds of fancy statistics to demonstrate this association in case you didn't believe them

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

I have been told that in late 80-s there was a PhD thesis in Cambridge (UK), entitled "Is depression more prevalent among the unemployed?"

Guess what the conclusion was?

But then, may be it was not so obvious in 1980s.

 

[Faebinder]

I have been told that in late 80-s there was a PhD thesis in Cambridge (UK), entitled "Is depression more prevalent among the unemployed?"

Guess what the conclusion was?

But then, may be it was not so obvious in 1980s.

I bet you that paper was a justification to make sure unemployed got mental health.

 

[Shalom77]

Another entry in from the British Journal of the Bleeding Obvious. Basically, antipsychotics don't fix violence if their violent tendencies aren't due to psychosis.

Actually I think the main point is:

Newer antipsychotics did not reduce violence more than perphenazine.

and your "basically" is just the caveat.

However in light of all the discussions we've been having about pharma influence of psychiatrists and the APA, one could imagine a different headline:

Despite extensive involvement with and funding from Pharma,

J.W.S., M.S.S., R.A.V.D., T.S.S. and H.R.W. have received research support from Eli Lilly, M.S.S. has received consulting and educational fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. T.S.S. has received consulting fees from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb. J.P.McE. has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer, consulting or advisory board fees from Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and lecture fees from Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. J.A.L. has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Pfizer, and consulting and education fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Solvay.

researchers conclude that new antipsychotics are not more effective than an older one at controlling violence. Not only that they point out that any antipsychotic might not be useful for controlling violence that is not due to psychosis.

(Of course their data comes from the CATIE study which was not funded by Pharma... )

 

[Anasazi23]

If you have bipolar disorder, you'll have more problems in life than if you don't.

Hmm....may take me a few weeks to digest this one.

http://www.medwire-news.md/47/76537...emain_an_issue_in_later_bipolar_disorder.html

 

[Effervescent]

You are definately right on the "you need controls, more experiments, etc etc". The edits are currently harsh though I dont know how harsh were they back in the days. What's funny is that many of the edits in different journals address little BS things rather the intactness of the data and methodology.

Here's one idea for dealing with harsh edits:
To: Editor, Archives of General Psychiatry

And here's some other ideas to bolster your research career:
Make tenure fast
Finish your Thesis within 1 month
Dictionary of Useful Research Phrases

 

[Anasazi23]

Here's another one:

[Most Americans want board-certified physicians with good bedside manners, survey indicates.
The UPI (8/5) reports that "[w]hat most U.S. adults want in a doctor is a good bedside manner and communications skills," according to a survey conducted by the American Board of Medical Specialties. In May, investigators polled 1,009 adults, and found that "95 percent of respondents rank communication skills and board certification highest in important qualities they look for in choosing a doctor." But, "most (respondents) didn't understand the meaning of board certification." [/quote]

You mean patients do not prefer less-qualified physicians who are rude?

 

[Anasazi23]

This one really surprised me:

In a related story, the Los Angeles Times (8/25, Brink) reports that in companies "where pink slips are being passed out with abandon, the still-employed survivors are getting pretty bummed out." A "2001 report, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, reviewed studies looking specifically at mental health and job insecurity -- as opposed to outright unemployment," and "found that job insecurity is a chronic stressor that leads to depression and anxiety." C. David Dooley, Ph.D., of the University of California-Irvine, and author of the 2004 book, The Social Costs of Underemployment, said, "If people are threatened with losing their jobs, they report feeling bad. It ranges from demoralization to depression, to more serious things." Following a corporate downsizing, the employed "survivors are worse off as well," Dooley explained. "They may be feeling survivor's guilt. Or they're overworked. Often, companies make the survivors do the work of everyone who used to work there." Dooley said that the "rate of depression among layoff survivors matches that of their former co-workers."

Report "feeling bad." Fascinating.

 

[Anasazi23]

Here's another one...

Survey indicates many adults diagnosed with AD/HD may have difficulty focusing at work.
UPI (10/16) reports, "Adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) say they have a hard time focusing at work and on their responsibilities," according to a national survey conducted by "Harris Interactive...for McNeil Pediatrics, division of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc." Investigators polled over "1,000 adults diagnosed with AD/HD," and found that "65 percent said they feel they have to work harder, and 47 percent said they have to work longer than co-workers to accomplish similar work." In addition, 75 percent "of respondents said their AD/HD symptoms strongly affect their ability to stay on task at work, while 70 percent have trouble concentrating on what others were saying."

This one was just a survey for Janssen.

 

[Still Kickin]

Survey indicates many adults diagnosed with AD/HD may have difficulty focusing at work.

I can't believe it! I just received this groundbreaking update in my inbox, too. I immediately popped over to sdn with the intent to post to this thread. (I can't believe you already beat me to it!)

 

[Anasazi23]

I can't believe it! I just received this groundbreaking update in my inbox, too. I immediately popped over to sdn with the intent to post to this thread. (I can't believe you already beat me to it!)

You can have the next one. There's plenty to go around.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I can't believe it! I just received this groundbreaking update in my inbox, too. I immediately popped over to sdn with the intent to post to this thread. (I can't believe you already beat me to it!)

Maybe if you were on the right med, you would have been focusing well enough to beat him!

 

[Still Kickin]

Maybe if you were on the right med, you would have been focusing well enough to beat him!

Good point!

 

[plainfacts]

I have been told that in late 80-s there was a PhD thesis in Cambridge (UK), entitled "Is depression more prevalent among the unemployed?"

Guess what the conclusion was?

But then, may be it was not so obvious in 1980s.

After Obama is finished with america the opposite will be true. Then lazy joe 6-packs will be super happy because they can drink beer all day and doctors will be miserable because they work all day only to pay 90% in taxes.

So don't you take anything obvious for granted.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Maybe the outcome of research like this does not have any immediate or obvious usefulness, but it's sometimes hard to tell what will come of asking questions that have "obvious" answers. After all, prior to Newton and Galileo, it was "obvious" to Aristotle that everything tried to move towards its proper place in the crystalline spheres of the heavens, and that physical bodies fell toward the center of the Earth in proportion to their weight. I'm sure you can probably think of better examples than this.

The feeling that findings are obvious can be related to the following: the false consensus effect, selfserving cognition, hindsight bias, baserate neglect, illusory correlations, and the fundamental computational bias.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Maybe the outcome of research like this does not have any immediate or obvious usefulness, but it's sometimes hard to tell what will come of asking questions that have "obvious" answers. After all, prior to Newton and Galileo, it was "obvious" to Aristotle that everything tried to move towards its proper place in the crystalline spheres of the heavens, and that physical bodies fell toward the center of the Earth in proportion to their weight. I'm sure you can probably think of better examples than this.

The feeling that findings are obvious can be related to the following: the false consensus effect, selfserving cognition, hindsight bias, baserate neglect, illusory correlations, and the fundamental computational bias.

I still think that that "gravity" theory is overrated--and its clinical relevance is overstated.

 

[wolfvgang22]

i still think that that "gravity" theory is overrated--and its clinical relevance is overstated.

:0)

 

[whopper]

I've noticed that there's a lot of people who just want to get published or can't come up with good ideas for publication.

I got a great case-a patient with neurosarcoidosis & everytime it acts up he gets agitated. However since none of the previous doctors who had him rated his agitation on a scale & because I can't do daily MRIs to confirm that its all due to his neurosarcoidosis (which I'm convinced it is), I won't even attempt to publish it.

Reason why I'm convinced its all his neurosarcoidosis is because no psyche med benefitted him, then when he gets a big dose of corticosteroids he's a perfect gentleman again.

When I was chief at my program, some residents came up to me and asked me for ideas for a study for publication. I shot down almost every single one...
"how about a case study where I give this guy who's depressed an antidepressant?"

I was going to pursue a study (& this might be of interest to you Faebinder) where we tracked patients on Risperdal Consta for 2 years. Reason why is because the PACT team put almost all their clients & Risperdal Consta & they were noticing that a subset of their patients, after a specific amount of time on this med seemed to decompensate as if the med stopped working. They even gave me a number of months where it seemed to stop working. That PACT team had dozens of clients so it could be enough for a study. Unfortuantely by the time I got the idea, I only had a few months left in the program.

 

[toby jones]

.