Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Jul;29(7):1060-4.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2755-z. Epub 2014 Jan 23.

Six persistent research misconceptions

Affiliations
Review

Six persistent research misconceptions

Kenneth J Rothman. J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jul.

Abstract

Scientific knowledge changes rapidly, but the concepts and methods of the conduct of research change more slowly. To stimulate discussion of outmoded thinking regarding the conduct of research, I list six misconceptions about research that persist long after their flaws have become apparent. The misconceptions are: 1) There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed by cohort studies, with case-control studies being least reliable. 2) An essential element for valid generalization is that the study subjects constitute a representative sample of a target population. 3) If a term that denotes the product of two factors in a regression model is not statistically significant, then there is no biologic interaction between those factors. 4) When categorizing a continuous variable, a reasonable scheme for choosing category cut-points is to use percentile-defined boundaries, such as quartiles or quintiles of the distribution. 5) One should always report P values or confidence intervals that have been adjusted for multiple comparisons. 6) Significance testing is useful and important for the interpretation of data. These misconceptions have been perpetuated in journals, classrooms and textbooks. They persist because they represent intellectual shortcuts that avoid more thoughtful approaches to research problems. I hope that calling attention to these misconceptions will spark the debates needed to shelve these outmoded ideas for good.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:560–2. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-8-201310150-00709 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hiatt WR. Observational studies of drug safety–aprotinin and the absence of transparency. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2171–2173. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068252. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shaten BJ, Kuller LH, Kjelsberg MO, Stamler J, Ockene JK, Cutler JA, Cohen JD. Lung cancer mortality after 16 years in MRFIT participants in intervention and usual-care groups. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;7:125–136. doi: 10.1016/S1047-2797(96)00123-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grodstein F, Manson JE, Colditz GA, et al. A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:933–941. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-12-200012190-00008. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources