,
,
Resource Link: Visit the Website
|
Short Description:
‘Ask for Evidence’ explanation of the term ‘in vitro’ research.
Key Concepts addressed:
Details
‘In vitro’ (meaning ‘in glass’) studies are where scientists investigate chemicals, microorganisms (e.g. bacteria) or tissue (e.g. skin cells in isolation) in test tubes or petri dishes in a lab.
For example, a researcher might want to examine the effect that a potential new medicine has on cancer cells. Putting some cancer cells together with some of the potential medicine in a test tube is a straightforward way of seeing what effect the potential medicine has on the cells.
You may also like
DISCERN online
A questionnaire providing a valid and reliable way of assessing the quality of written information on treatment choices.
How myths are made
Ben Goldacre draws attention to Steven Greenberg’s forensically based illustration of citation biases.
Browse Key Concepts
- Claims: are they justified?
- 1-1 Treatments can harm
- 1-2 Anecdotes are unreliable evidence
- 1-3 Association is not the same as causation
- 1-4 Common practice is not always evidence-based
- 1-5 Newer is not necessarily better
- 1-6 Expert opinion is not always right
- 1-7 Beware of conflicting interests
- 1-8 More is not necessarily better
- 1-9 Earlier is not necessarily better
- 1-10 Hope may lead to unrealistic expectations
- 1-11 Explanations about how treatments work can be wrong
- 1-12 Dramatic treatment effects are rare
- Comparisons: are they fair and reliable?
- 2-1 Comparisons are needed to identify treatment effects
- 2-2 Comparison groups should be similar
- 2-3 Peoples’ outcomes should be analyzed in their original groups
- 2-4 Comparison groups should be treated equally
- 2-5 People should not know which treatment they get
- 2-6 Peoples’ outcomes should be assessed similarly
- 2-7 All should be followed up
- 2-8 Consider all of the relevant fair comparisons
- 2-9 Reviews of fair comparisons should be systematic
- 2-10 Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information
- 2-11 All fair comparisons and outcomes should be reported
- 2-12 Subgroup analyses may be misleading
- 2-13 Relative measures of effects can be misleading
- 2-14 Average measures of effects can be misleading
- 2-15 Fair comparisons with few people or outcome events can be misleading
- 2-16 Confidence intervals should be reported
- 2-17 Don’t confuse “statistical significance” with “importance”
- 2-18 Don’t confuse “no evidence” with “no effect”
- Choices: making informed choices
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
