↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Evolution and Translation of Research Findings: From Bench to Where

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Clinical Trials, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
Evolution and Translation of Research Findings: From Bench to Where
Published in
PLoS Clinical Trials, November 2006
DOI 10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P A Ioannidis

Abstract

The credibility and replication of research findings evolve over time, as data accumulate. However, translation of postulated research promises to real-life biomedical applications is uncommon. In some fields of research, we may observe diminishing effects for the strength of research findings and rapid alternations of exaggerated claims and extreme contradictions--the "Proteus Phenomenon." While these phenomena are probably more prominent in the basic sciences, similar manifestations have been documented even in clinical trials and they may undermine the credibility of clinical research. Significance-chasing bias may be in part responsible, but the greatest threat may come from the poor relevance and scientific rationale and thus low pre-study odds of success of research efforts. Given that we currently have too many research findings, often with low credibility, replication and rigorous evaluation become as important as or even more important than discovery. Credibility, replication, and translation are all desirable properties of research findings, but are only modestly correlated. In this essay, I discuss some of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the process of evolution and translation of research findings, with emphasis on the biomedical sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 125 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Researcher 24 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 21 15%
Other 12 9%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 14%
Psychology 9 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 32 23%
Unknown 19 14%