Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Current Data on and Clinical Insights into the Treatment of First Episode Nonaffective Psychosis: A Comprehensive Review

Implementing the most suitable treatment strategies and making appropriate clinical decisions about individuals with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) is a complex and crucial task, with relevant impact in illness outcome. Treatment approaches in the early stages should go beyond choosing the right antipsychotic drug and should also address tractable factors influencing the risk of relapse. Effectiveness and likely metabolic and endocrine disturbances differ among second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and should guide the choice of the first-line treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in schizophrenia patients, and therefore monitoring weight and metabolic changes across time is mandatory. Behavioral and counseling interventions might be partly effective in reducing weight gain and metabolic disturbances. Ziprasidone and aripiprazole have been described to be least commonly associated with weight gain or metabolic changes. In addition, some of the SGAs (risperidone, amisulpride, and paliperidone) have been associated with a significant increase of plasma prolactin levels. Overall, in cases of FEP, there should be a clear recommendation of using lower doses of the antipsychotic medication. If no or minimal clinical improvement is found after 2 weeks of treatment, such patients may benefit from a change or augmentation of treatment. Clinicians should provide accurate information to patients and relatives about the high risk of relapse if antipsychotics are discontinued, even if patients have been symptom free and functionally recovered on antipsychotic treatment for a lengthy period of time.This review was carried out at the Hospital Marque´s de Valdecilla, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain, with the following Grant support: Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI020499, PI050427, PI060507, Plan Nacional de Drugs Research Grant 2005-Orden sco/3246/2004, SENY Fundacio´ Research Grant CI 2005-0308007, Fundacio´n Marque´s de Valdecilla API07/011 and CIBERSAM

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)