How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists

[rurwin]

This is an interesting read. There are a lot of papers out there, some of them produced by ANTZ or Big Pharma seem to prove the e-cigs are dangerous, whereas others say it is much safer than cigarettes. This article discusses how a non-scientist can approach such papers critically and gain some undertanding of how truthful they are being.

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists

It's aimed at parents that want to understand the vaccination "debate", but it's very applicable to the e-cig "debate", where much the same sort of nonsense goes on.

 

[GinnyTx]

after taking stats and doing my post grad prep work for a research project..I know that the data can and is manipulated. You can prove just about any point you want to honestly by manipulating the data.

I think critical thinking is probably your best tool at approaching any of that kind of data...like the anti vaccination stuff..I've seen kids with whooping cough, polio etc, yeah I've read the potential side effects and me and the kiddos were stuck more than a pin cushion *lol*

thanks Rurwin!

 

[englishmick]

It's really easy to scan through any piece of writing and eagerly grab onto something that supports what you want to believe, and slide past the bits that don't fit so well. I used to have to practice some critical thinking when I was debugging software, but not so much these days.

I've been hitting this problem lately, since I started poring over material about ecigs. There's not a lot of original research available, it's mostly just commentary about research. You read that and think you've learned something, but you really haven't. Although maybe the original research is available but I haven't taken the time to follow the links.

Logic is great. Did you know they've found ancient batteries in modern day Iraq? They could have been used for e-cigs. If so, where could ancient Babylonians have got the idea of e-cigs? Maybe, Aliens?

 

[issy]

Thank you for posting this, rurwin. Anytime that anyone tells me "They did a study!" I just want to shake them. Most people have NO IDEA how studies work, or how statisticians manipulate their magic numbers. You have to understand the starting values and see what they do with the numbers and why. You also have to look at who's funding what. It's such a mind game that ends up misleading so many people. I'm fortunate that I cared enough to take college courses in statistics, epidemiology, pharmacology, biology, nutrition, etc. JAMA can publish something that 6 months later is completely refuted by their own words, and I don't have a problem with that. I just change my views based on current, credible research.

The problem is when the media gets a hold of poorly designed studies, then has someone fancy promote it. Then it's forever cemented in our brains until there's a class action lawsuit.

 

[Danbrooks2k]

Say regular stuff... all this fancy talk makes my head hurt.

Or maybe its the poisonous ceramic death dust from my Atlantis stock coils... I will say, as far as ceramic death dust goes... Atlantis really figured out a way to make it full of flavor.

Now there is a bogus, manipulated bunch of nonsense over on reddit... keeps bleeding over into ECF.

 

[caramel]

Well they generally have to have some sections like introduction, objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusion.

You can enormously manipulate by choosing materials and methods that are (more or less subtly) not fit. Only peers in your field of expertise would be able to notice this kind of stuff.

 

[zoiDman]

The Very 1st thing I like to do when I see a Study that I am interested in is to look and see who Funded the Study.

If I see a e-Cigarette study and notice that it is Funded by "The National Council for the Prevention to Tobacco Use in America", there is the Possibility that the Study may be Slightly Biased.

 

[caramel]

Possibility that the Study may be Slightly Biased.

This is the understatement of the day