Research

This encyclopaedia references many academic studies which may be superceded by newer findings. We encourage readers to conduct their own searches when looking for more information but wish to strongly caution regarding sources and how to sort the wheat from the chaff.

What is research?

None of these are valid research

1. My Aunt Alice says ...

2. This famous celebrity says ...

3. The writer of this magazine article says ...

4.  Google says ...

However venerated your Aunt Alice is, unless she is an expert in the field, relying on her suggestions to be definitive, is not a good source of information. 

Because a celebrity has made a name in sport or entertainment, or whatever field, may mean they're good at that particular thing but it doesn't make them an expert in the field you wish to study.

Writers of magazine articles (either in print or on the web) are motivated to attract an audience and make money. They are no more a specialist than you or I.

Anyone can produce a webpage and put any information on it they please. Perhaps 10% of what you find with a Google search may be true but there is so much misleading information as to make reliance on Googling, really quite dangerous.

In his book, Don't Believe What You Think, Edzard Ernst (the world's first professor of Complemetary and Alternative Medicine, cautions: "The problem with misleading information masquerading as research is that consumers tend to fall for it. Consequently, they opt for bogus treatments. They are, in other words, often defenceless against the dangers of pseudo-research. This phenomenon is, of course, particularly dangerous for patients who are desperately ill, such as those suffering from cancer. After having recovered from the shock of hearing such a diagnosis, virtually every patient I have ever met went on the internet to do their own exploration—they would call it ‘research’—aimed at finding out what SCAM [So Called Alternative Medicine] has to offer. Thus, they find hundreds of seemingly well-researched treatments that promise a cure or at least an improvement of their quality of life. Tragically, patients do fall for such offers only to discover later—often too late—that they were sold false hope, usually at great expense."

There are different types of valid study

The best is probably a double blind large cohort study over a period of time. eg, two groups of patients each given a drug, one half receiving a placebo and another the drug under investigation. Neither patient nor researcher knows who has which. However this isn't always possible or even ethical.

Then there is the review paper that looks at the findings of many different research papers on similar themes and attempts to draw conclusions. (This is the technique employed in the pages on Alcohol and Coffee in this publication for example.)  It has the advantage it can quickly provide results from a larger cohort but each study may have differing criteria and there can be confounding factors t be taken into consideration.

At the other end of the research spectrum is the patient survey. This has obvious limitations but can be valid if a sufficiently large sample is chosen and questions are carefully considered. (This was used to provide data for this book's Extra-Oesophageal Reflux chapter.)

If you wish to search scientific papers, there are some things to watch out for:

1. Check the journal the paper was published in.

2. Check on the author(s)

3. Check the type of study. Was it a survey of previous studies or something new?

4. How recently was it published? Could its findings have been superceded?

5. How large was the study? Results from thousands of samples over a number of years are better than results from half a dozen people over a couple of weeks.

6. Who sponsored the study? (Remember, "He who pays the piper ...")

7. Who benefits from the study? Does someone make money from it?

The US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issues similar advice:

Know the Science: 9 Questions To Help You Make Sense of Health Research

Sources: 

Unless you are able to conduct your own proper research, we may be limited to online searches.

Remember, Google is not our friend. If you have no other source, at least use Google Scholar. 

However, PubMed is probably the easiest way to find most recently published peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Perhaps the last word should go to Edzard Ernst who spent a lifetime researching SCAM (So Called Alternative Medicine):

How can a layperson tell the chaff from the wheat? To decide whether it is worth keeping an open mind about claims related to a specific SCAM, a step by step approach might be helpful:

1. Where did you read about the claim? If it was in a newspaper, magazine, website, etc. please take it with a pinch of salt.

2. Can you trace the claim to a scientific paper? This might challenge your skills as an amateur detective, but it is always worth finding the original source of a therapeutic claim in order to judge its credibility. If no good source can be found, I advise caution.

3. In which medical journal was the claim published? There are dozens of SCAM journals that would publish virtually any rubbish.

4. Who are the authors of the scientific paper? It can be difficult for a layperson to evaluate their credibility. But there might be certain pointers; for instance, authors affiliated to a university are likely to be more credible than SCAM practitioners who have no such affiliations.

5. What sort of article is the original source of the claim? Is it a proper experimental study or a mere opinion piece? If possible, try to find a good quality (perhaps even a Cochrane)review on the subject.

6. Are there other researchers who have arrived at similar conclusions? If the claim is based on just one solitary piece of research or opinion, it clearly weighs less than a consensus of experts.

7. Do publications exist that disagree with the claim? Even if there are several scientific papers from different teams of researchers supporting the claim, it is important to know whether the claim is undisputed or not.

(Source: Ernst, Edzard. Don't Believe What You Think (Societas) (p. 28). Societas. Kindle Edition.)

Page updated 14 February 2023