Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài: Prominent medical journals often provide insufficient information to assess the validity of studies with negative results | Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine BioMed Central Research Open Access Prominent medical journals often provide insufficient information to assess the validity of studies with negative results Randy S Hebert 1 Scott M Wright2 Robert S Dittus3 and Tom A Elasy3 Address 1Division of General Internal Medicine University of Pittsburgh 933W MUH 200 Lothrop Street Pittsburgh PA 15213 USA 2Division of General Internal Medicine Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine A6W 4940 Eastern AvenueBaltimore MD 21224 USA and 3Division of General Internal Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center S-1121 MCN 2587 Nashville TN 37232 USA E-mail Randy S Hebert - hebertrs@ Scott M Wright - swright@ Robert S Dittus - Tom A Elasy - Corresponding author Published 30 September 2002 Received 19 July 2002 Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 2002 1 1 This article is available from http content 1 1 1 Accepted 30 September 2002 2002 Hebert et al licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This article Is published in Open Access verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose provided this notice is preserved along with the article s original URL. Abstract Background Physicians reading the medical literature attempt to determine whether research studies are valid. However articles with negative results may not provide sufficient information to allow physicians to properly assess validity. Methods We analyzed all original research articles with negative results published in 1997 in the weekly journals BMJ JAMA Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine as well as those published in the 1997 and 1998 issues of the bimonthly Annals of Internal Medicine N 234 . Our primary objective was to quantify the proportion of studies with negative results that comment on power and present confidence intervals. Secondary outcomes were
