Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Evidence
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Scientific evidence | Is it valid and replicable? |
| Legal evidence | Is it reasonable under a set of established guidelines? Very black and white, binary. Standards for evidence change |
| Industry/market evidence | Does it work? |
| Academic references | Academic research follows conventions and styles. References means it is a written document. Communication and collaboration for evidence to be valid. Writing is very central to scientific communication |
| Parts of academic references | Not usually more than 4 issues in a volume. Volume 1, issue 1 means its a new journal. The year is very important, understand what is happening during those times |
| Which two things are peer review considered? | The gold standard or a flawed system at the heart of science |
| What did Richard Smith argue? | That peer review is a flawed system at the heart of science |
| Peer review process | Quality control system for academic research |
| Peer | expert scholars who share the same field of study |
| Review | Evaluate for accuracy, innovation, and scholarly standards. If those aren't met, paper may not be published. |
| Order of peer review | 1. Write research findings (academic paper or book), 2. submit to academic publisher. 3. Reject or sent out for peer review. 4. Rejection, revision, or accept. 5. If accepted, then published. 6. Public commentary, academic corrections |
| Peer review is a | constantly evolving practice. It was a response to demands for public accountability. |
| Who introduced peer review? | William Whewell in 1831 from Cambridge University. He convinced the London Royal Society to commission reports on manuscripts submitted to the journal. |
| What was Whewell's first objective? | To increase the public visibility of science and to provide unified identify for scientists. He drew on tradition in French Academy of Sciences to have experts write reports for monarchy about inventions and discoveries |
| The idea that peer review should ensure the integrity of the scientific literature came | much later than Whewell. Geologist George Greenough introduced concept of 'referee' from law; replaced with 'peer review'. In 1973, external refereeing became requirement in Nature |
| What did Richard Smith have to say about peer review specifically? | Peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review. |
| Three types of peer review | Double blind, single blind, open review |
| Double blind peer review | Authors and reviewers remain anonymous |
| Single Blind peer review | Only one party remains anonymous (usually either the reviewer or the author) |
| Open review | Authors and reviewers are known to each other |
| What are the cons of open review? | Can have bias about religion, racial bias, bias on your name, gender bias. e.g. male reviewed paper was marked easier than that of the female paper even though the only difference was the name, the actual paper was the same |
| Self correcting process of publication | corrigendum, letters to journal editors, retraction |
| Corrigendum | correction published to appear alongside paper online. Usually instigated if researcher discovers error in their published paper. |
| Letters to journal editors | If other researchers disagree or identify flaws in a published paper, they can write letters to editor |
| Retraction | After publication, if a paper is found to be fraudulent, the journal will publish the retraction on-line. Editors can publish expression of concern if concerned about validity and investigation is underway |
| Problems with peer review | Prone to bias and abuse, poor at detecting error and unable to protect against fraud, overworked researchers, slow and expensive, anti-innovatory tends to reject truly original research |
| MMR Autism Vaccine Controversy | One published study (Wakefield et al 1998) inspired contemporary anti-vaccination campaigns. MMR-autism controversy shows the limitations of peer review and correction mechanisms in scientific publishing |
| Andrew Wakefield's published article | concluded that "possible environmental triggers" (i.e. the vaccine) was associated with the onset of gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression. Wakefield stated publicly that MMR vaccine was a problem |
| Measles outbreaks (UK, 2008 and 2009, and recently) | was attributed to a drop in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine after the autism controversy |
| Did the literature review show evidence of links between MMR vaccine and autism? | No |
| Why do the scientific community not remove papers? | They don't remove papers in order to help us understand arguments against the paper, it provides people with context and shows scientific transparency |
| Brian Deer Journalist | Brought the attention to public light. Failure to declare conflicts of interest. Accused Wakefield of acting as 'hired gun' (went in with a bias). Abuse of autistic children on whom he based his research. |
| What was so special about Brian Deer | He was just a journalist not part of the scientific community. Deer's book was peer reviewed by specialists in the field and fact checked by other experts (lawyers) substantiated by documentary proof. This was unusual. Wakefield tried to sue Deer |
| Publication ethics | Ensures that research is reliable and advances knowledge. Ethical principles guide and support editors, researchers, reviewers and others involved in publication ethics to do their work responsibly and transparently |
| Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) | Forum to improve research integrity. Issues guidelines and offer education. Publication integrity week Nov. 17-21, 2025 |
| The evidence pyramid | Origins: evidence based medicine movement. |
| Evidence based medicine defined as | "The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, Richardson) |
| Filtered information | At the top of the pyramid. Contains: systematic reviews, critically appraised topics (evidence syntheses), and critically appraised individual articles (article synopses) |
| Unfiltered information | The bottom of the pyramid. Contains: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case controlled studies. Research or expert opinion |
| Limitations of the evidence pyramid | positivist in orientation. Eliminates context, culture, and subjects of knowledge production from consideration. Attempt to order the unruly world of medical decision making through appeals to science |
| Retrospective/ Prospective cohort, Case Report, Expert opinion are foundational | These types of evidence can provide important information and should not always be perceived as 'less than' without consideration of context. These are found at the bottom of the pyramid |
| RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are | not always feasible nor ethical. Withholding a drug in emergencies can be unethical so placebo for this can't be ethical. Testing the safety of parachutes with a placebo (one gets a good parachute another doesn't) is very unethical |
| Systematic reviews | are expensive and time consuming. Interpretations can introduce unacknowledged biases |
| Cochrane review and face masks | discovered high levels of uncertainty about efficacy of face masks in stopping the spread of respiratory disease. Lead researcher-Tom Jefferson-claimed publicly that study showed that face masks don't work. |
| Cochrane review | Conducted by Cochrane Group. Do not do original research. Conduct systematic reviews of existing research. Known for robust and transparent methods. Reputation of a very good group |
| Evidence based medicine paradigm perspective on truth | Singular; independent of researcher; found through empirical inquiry. |
| Evidence based medicine paradigm good research is... | Methodological rigorous, structured, standardized, statistically significant, generalizable findings |
| Evidence based medicine paradigm role of evidence in decision making | Decisions need to be based on high quality evidence, as defined by scientists. Best to wait until good evidence about benefits is gathered. |
| Systems based paradign perspective on truth | Multiple; influenced by researcher, mode of inquiry and perspective taken. |
| System based paradigm good research is | Theoretically sound, flexible, adaptable, socially and situationally relevant, transferable findings |
| System based paradigm role of evidence in decision making | Decisions are often made in conditions of incomplete and inconsistent evidence. Best to act even if evidence is not perfect. Multiple forms of knowledge, and inclusive of Indigenous views |
| Evidence and contested ways of knowing | Regardless of the varied robustness of the methods used, the production of data and the interpretation of evidence are often done based on contested epistemologies-competing ideas of what is relevant, beneficial, knowledge/best evidence to begin with |
| Evidence and defining science | Science is a mess and difficult to define rules for evidence |
| 4 levels of expertise | No expertise, contributory expertise, interactional expertise, public expertise |
| Contributory expertise | In their element. Scientists in their field of expertise |
| Interactional expertise | Not formally trained, but know quite a bit about the topic. Journalists often fall under this expertise |
| Public expertise | Politicians, understands what the public needs |
| Conflict of Interest | Occurs when an individual's personal interests (financial gain, career advancement, personal relationships) unduly influence professional judgement, decisions, and action. Conflict of interest can be real or perceived |
| Evidence assessment | Process of identifying, gathering, evaluating and synthesizing information to make a judgement, from a conclusion, or support a decision. Can range from formal hierarchal evidence pyramids to less structured guidelines |
Created by:
user-1996284