IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/0040026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Should Potentially False Research Findings Be Considered Acceptable?

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Djulbegovic
  • Iztok Hozo

Abstract

Summary: Ioannidis estimated that most published research findings are false [1], but he did not indicate when, if at all, potentially false research results may be considered as acceptable to society. We combined our two previously published models [2,3] to calculate the probability above which research findings may become acceptable. A new model indicates that the probability above which research results should be accepted depends on the expected payback from the research (the benefits) and the inadvertent consequences (the harms). This probability may dramatically change depending on our willingness to tolerate error in accepting false research findings. Our acceptance of research findings changes as a function of what we call “acceptable regret,” i.e., our tolerance of making a wrong decision in accepting the research hypothesis. We illustrate our findings by providing a new framework for early stopping rules in clinical research (i.e., when should we accept early findings from a clinical trial indicating the benefits as true?). Obtaining absolute “truth” in research is impossible, and so society has to decide when less-than-perfect results may become acceptable. The authors calculate the probability above which potentially false research findings may become acceptable to society.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Djulbegovic & Iztok Hozo, 2007. "When Should Potentially False Research Findings Be Considered Acceptable?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-7, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0040026
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040026
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040026&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Djulbegovic & Ahmed H. Desoky, 1996. "Equation and Nomogram for Calculation of Testing and Treatment Thresholds," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 198-199, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0040026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.