"Methological Errors in Medical Research" (1990) by Bjorn Andersen (mini-review of book by me)

[Tom Kindlon]

I've just finished reading "Methological Errors in Medical Research" by Bjorn Andersen.
It was recommended by Ben Goldacre in "Bad Science".

I am on the lookout now for things that would help enable me critique and criticise research studies better and this sounded like it might be useful.

Here's the official blurb:

There is little evidence that an understanding of sound research methods has been used for clinical research and many papers are published which contain methodological flaws and errors. For the past 30 years the author has collected examples of published papers with such errors. He has used these in the teaching of postgraduate courses as a way of making theoretical statistical concepts memorable for participants. This book touches on such fields as experimental design, randomized trials, screening, evaluation of diagnostic tests, clinical epidemiology and statistics. Each example provided is followed by a brief discussion of the principal errors committed.

Table of contents:

I found it an interesting read. He seems a very intelligent guy who can find subtle problems with papers that have been published.

A lot of the examples don't require any statistical knowledge, while a smaller percentage would require some basic knowledge of statistical tests (but perhaps he explains what is involved enough for previous knowledge not to be necessary; I have some knowledge myself so hard for me to say). Apart from a handful of references (which could be skipped over), it doesn't require knowledge of any third level mathematics.
A percentage of examples did cause me to look at a medical dictionary. (Some of that was probably not necessary: I like to broaden my knowledge of medical matters)

I gradually read it over a few months. Although not as dense as a mathematical textbook, it is still somewhat dense. I found myself having to reread it bits of it. There were still some bits that I didn't understand.

I might come back to it in 5-10 years for revision and to see if I understand the bits I didn't get the first time.

Overall I'm pleased that I read it. Unfortunately I'm not sure if there are that many cheap copies around to buy but perhaps people can request it from libraries if they are interested.

 

[cfsStevew]

good effort. Question is - have you been able to apply any of its content to ME studies? Did anything come up with regard to some of the unpopular studies such as PACE?

 

[Tom Kindlon]

good effort. Question is - have you been able to apply any of its content to ME studies? Did anything come up with regard to some of the unpopular studies such as PACE?

This book came out in 1990. I don't think it had anything on ME and CFS.

It's a fair question. Unfortunately, I can't remember now what exactly might be relevant.