Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review.

Uwe Peters, Henrik Røed Sherling, Benjamin Chin-Yee
Author Information
  1. Uwe Peters: Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. ORCID
  2. Henrik Røed Sherling: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
  3. Benjamin Chin-Yee: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. ORCID

Abstract

It is unknown to what extent medical researchers generalize study findings beyond their samples when their sample size, sample diversity, or knowledge of conditions that support external validity do not warrant it. It is also unknown to what extent medical researchers describe their results with precise quantifications or unquantified generalizations, i.e., generics, that can obscure variations between individuals. We therefore systematically reviewed all prospective studies (n = 533) published in the top four highest ranking medical journals, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), from January 2022 to May 2023. We additionally reviewed all NEJM Journal Watch clinical research summaries (n = 143) published during the same time. Of all research articles reporting prospective studies, 52.5% included generalizations beyond specific national study populations, with the numbers of articles with generics varying significantly between journals (JAMA = 12%; Lancet = 77%) (p < 0.001, V = 0.48). There was no evidence that articles containing broader generalizations or generics were correlated with larger or more nationally diverse samples. Moreover, only 10.2% of articles with generalizations beyond specific national populations reported external validity strengthening factors that could potentially support such extrapolations. There was no evidence that original research articles and NEJM Journal Watch summaries intended for practitioners differed in their use of broad generalizations, including generics. Finally, from the journal with the highest citation impact, articles containing broader conclusions were correlated with more citations. Since there was no evidence that studies with generalizations beyond specific national study populations or with generics were associated with larger, more nationally diverse samples, or with reports of population similarity that may permit extensions of conclusions, our findings suggest that the generalizations in many articles were insufficiently supported. Caution against overly broad generalizations in medical research is warranted.

References

  1. Prev Sci. 2015 Apr;16(3):475-85 [PMID: 25307417]
  2. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  3. N Engl J Med. 2022 Oct 13;387(15):1361-1372 [PMID: 36239644]
  4. BMJ. 2019 Dec 16;367:l6573 [PMID: 31843745]
  5. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul;56(7):337-346 [PMID: 29628024]
  6. Lancet. 2022 Jul 9;400(10346):116-125 [PMID: 35810757]
  7. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021 Oct 14;7(1):74 [PMID: 34650078]
  8. Clin Transl Sci. 2020 Jul;13(4):675-684 [PMID: 32058639]
  9. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Aug 7;94(15):1160-7 [PMID: 12165641]
  10. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Nov;82(5):1303-1307 [PMID: 27304207]
  11. Psychol Rev. 2019 Apr;126(3):395-436 [PMID: 30762385]
  12. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):127 [PMID: 28830371]
  13. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 May;14(5):365-76 [PMID: 23571845]
  14. Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 1;188(2):438-443 [PMID: 30299451]
  15. Eur J Intern Med. 2021 Aug;90:49-65 [PMID: 34092486]
  16. Cogn Sci. 2022 Sep;46(9):e13188 [PMID: 36044007]
  17. BMJ. 2014 Dec 09;349:g7015 [PMID: 25498121]
  18. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2006 Feb;16(2):101-10 [PMID: 16424822]
  19. Lancet. 2023 Jan 21;401(10372):195-203 [PMID: 36681415]
  20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Sep 10;116(37):18370-18377 [PMID: 31451665]
  21. Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;42(4):1012-4 [PMID: 24062287]
  22. Trials. 2017 Mar 14;18(1):122 [PMID: 28288676]
  23. Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 19;6:179 [PMID: 29971226]
  24. JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Sep;149(9):1025-32 [PMID: 23884208]
  25. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 3;115(27):E6106-E6115 [PMID: 29915059]

MeSH Term

Humans
Biomedical Research
Prospective Studies
Periodicals as Topic

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0generalizationsarticlesgenericsmedical=JournalbeyondresearchstudysamplesstudiesNEJMspecificnationalpopulationsevidenceunknownextentresearchersfindingssamplesupportexternalvalidityreviewedprospectivenpublishedhighestjournalsLancetMedicalJAMAWatchsummaries0containingbroadercorrelatedlargernationallydiversebroadconclusionsgeneralizesizediversityknowledgeconditionswarrantalsodescriberesultsprecisequantificationsunquantifiediecanobscurevariationsindividualsthereforesystematically533topfourrankingNewEnglandMedicineAmericanAssociationBritishBMJJanuary2022May2023additionallyclinical143timereporting525%includednumbersvaryingsignificantly12%77%p<001V48Moreover102%reportedstrengtheningfactorspotentiallyextrapolationsoriginalintendedpractitionersdiffereduseincludingFinallyjournalcitationimpactcitationsSinceassociatedreportspopulationsimilaritymaypermitextensionssuggestmanyinsufficientlysupportedCautionoverlywarrantedHastyresearch:systematicreview

Similar Articles

Cited By