This site has been archived. The work goes on at Full Fact.

medical journals

Nigel Hawkes :: Thu, 07/06/2012 - 11:34

Building icon

Development gurus forced to eat humble pie

Nigel Hawkes :: Thu, 28/07/2011 - 08:11

Pie Chart

Hold the front page: porn stars get STIs

Here’s a surprise: rates of sexually-transmitted diseases are high among performers in the adult film industry.

Nigel Hawkes :: Tue, 01/03/2011 - 15:56

Building icon

Deaths from alcohol foretold

Six executives from leading drink companies have written to The Times today protesting about a story on alcohol-related deaths.

Nigel Hawkes :: Wed, 24/11/2010 - 14:01

Pie Chart

How honest are researchers?

Scientists from the US are the most prone to dishonesty, claims a new paper (1) in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Nigel Hawkes :: Tue, 26/10/2010 - 16:52

Building icon

Fishing for significance

Fish and the oils it contains are supposed to be good for mothers-to-be and their children.
 

Nigel Hawkes :: Mon, 20/09/2010 - 13:02

Building icon

Lancet asked to review controversial birth study

The Lancet’s  Ombudsman, Dr Charles Warlow, has ruled that criticisms made here of a WHO stu

Nigel Hawkes :: Thu, 09/09/2010 - 09:56

Pie Chart

More pressure to dump home birth study

A letter in the current issue of the BMJ (4 September, p 473) calls for the withdrawal of an American study criticised

Nigel Hawkes :: Wed, 04/08/2010 - 14:18

Building icon

The Lancet, WHO and Caesareans: over to the Ombudsman

A formal complaint has been made to The Lancet’s Ombudsman over a paper on the risks of Caesareans that was the subject of a critical analysis by Straight Statistics.

Nigel Hawkes :: Mon, 21/06/2010 - 11:21

Building icon

Don’t count the numbers, count the spoons

The bigger a study, the better? That’s an assumption often made. But even studies that knock us out by their sheer size may be wrong.

Nigel Hawkes :: Wed, 27/01/2010 - 17:34

Building icon

Trial and error: the perils of the p value

Too many clinical trials produce results that are statistically significant but clinically meaningless, according to two US cardiologists.