Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Neil A. Hanson; Matthew B. Lavallee; Robert H. Thiele

doi:10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2

Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Neil A. Hanson
, Matthew B. Lavallee
, Robert H. Thiele

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer “positive” results over “negative” ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to “overbid” for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1185-1196
Number of pages	12
Journal	Canadian Journal of Anesthesia
Volume	68
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2
State	Published - Aug 2021
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
In 2006, Schwinn and Balser lamented the fact that anesthesiology departments were recipients of less than 1% of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding from 1975 to 2003. To put that into context, anesthesiologists make up almost 5% of the physician workforce in the United States. If we are going to combat the misunderstandings that have created premature adoption, participation in the process of scientific discovery is essential. Thirteen years later, our specialty’s percentage of NIH funding remains stubbornly low, at 0.6%. Worse, more than half of that funding is concentrated in only ten departments, creating a winner-takes-all scenario where most academic anesthesiology departments have virtually no access to NIH funding. Contrast our specialty with medicine and surgery—as of 2020, anesthesiology departments held 508 NIH grants compared with 8,194 for internal medicine departments and 984 for surgery departments. Looking at the NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01; four to five years duration and several million USD) grants specifically, anesthesiologists held 291, internists and adult subspecialists held 3,371, and surgeons held 518. Our pipeline is at risk, as there were only 56 NIH career development awards (K-08 [basic science] and K-23 [clinical/translational]) awarded to anesthesiology departments compared with 1,022 for medicine departments and 94 for surgery departments.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.

Keywords

anesthesia
apophenia
bias
incentives
premature adoption
Publishing
Humans
Anesthesia

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Journal Article

Publisher link

10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{a4820964b01948688998d7bae6e5d096,

title = "Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely",

abstract = "Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer “positive” results over “negative” ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to “overbid” for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.",

keywords = "anesthesia, apophenia, bias, incentives, premature adoption, Publishing, Humans, Anesthesia",

author = "Hanson, \{Neil A.\} and Lavallee, \{Matthew B.\} and Thiele, \{Robert H.\}",

note = "Funding Information: In 2006, Schwinn and Balser lamented the fact that anesthesiology departments were recipients of less than 1\% of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding from 1975 to 2003. To put that into context, anesthesiologists make up almost 5\% of the physician workforce in the United States. If we are going to combat the misunderstandings that have created premature adoption, participation in the process of scientific discovery is essential. Thirteen years later, our specialty{\textquoteright}s percentage of NIH funding remains stubbornly low, at 0.6\%. Worse, more than half of that funding is concentrated in only ten departments, creating a winner-takes-all scenario where most academic anesthesiology departments have virtually no access to NIH funding. Contrast our specialty with medicine and surgery—as of 2020, anesthesiology departments held 508 NIH grants compared with 8,194 for internal medicine departments and 984 for surgery departments. Looking at the NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01; four to five years duration and several million USD) grants specifically, anesthesiologists held 291, internists and adult subspecialists held 3,371, and surgeons held 518. Our pipeline is at risk, as there were only 56 NIH career development awards (K-08 [basic science] and K-23 [clinical/translational]) awarded to anesthesiology departments compared with 1,022 for medicine departments and 94 for surgery departments. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.",

year = "2021",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "68",

pages = "1185--1196",

journal = "Canadian Journal of Anesthesia",

issn = "0832-610X",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

T2 - how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

AU - Hanson, Neil A.

AU - Lavallee, Matthew B.

AU - Thiele, Robert H.

N1 - Funding Information: In 2006, Schwinn and Balser lamented the fact that anesthesiology departments were recipients of less than 1% of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding from 1975 to 2003. To put that into context, anesthesiologists make up almost 5% of the physician workforce in the United States. If we are going to combat the misunderstandings that have created premature adoption, participation in the process of scientific discovery is essential. Thirteen years later, our specialty’s percentage of NIH funding remains stubbornly low, at 0.6%. Worse, more than half of that funding is concentrated in only ten departments, creating a winner-takes-all scenario where most academic anesthesiology departments have virtually no access to NIH funding. Contrast our specialty with medicine and surgery—as of 2020, anesthesiology departments held 508 NIH grants compared with 8,194 for internal medicine departments and 984 for surgery departments. Looking at the NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01; four to five years duration and several million USD) grants specifically, anesthesiologists held 291, internists and adult subspecialists held 3,371, and surgeons held 518. Our pipeline is at risk, as there were only 56 NIH career development awards (K-08 [basic science] and K-23 [clinical/translational]) awarded to anesthesiology departments compared with 1,022 for medicine departments and 94 for surgery departments. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer “positive” results over “negative” ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to “overbid” for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.

AB - Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer “positive” results over “negative” ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to “overbid” for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.

KW - anesthesia

KW - apophenia

KW - bias

KW - incentives

KW - premature adoption

KW - Publishing

KW - Humans

KW - Anesthesia

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85105526873

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85105526873#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2

DO - 10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 33963519

AN - SCOPUS:85105526873

SN - 0832-610X

VL - 68

SP - 1185

EP - 1196

JO - Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

JF - Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

IS - 8

ER -

Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this