Accentuate the negative

Dan has posted previously on how difficult it is for authors to get negative studies published.  Perhaps this is the real reason why the STAR*ICU study took 4+ years to make it to press.  I suspect that if the study was completed the exact same way that it was but found a benefit for barrier precautions, it would have appeared in press around 2009 or even earlier.  Just a guess.

Mike has posted at least twice on Ben Goldacre and his blog/book called Bad Science (part 1 and part 2).  Ben has a new post in the Guardian that discusses how medicine, academia and popular culture all favor positive, eye-catching and potentially spurious trial results and ignore important negative studies.  His discussion centers around a paper published last year that seemed to provide evidence of precognition - you know it before it actually happens.  That "positive" paper received tons of press, while a new negative study can't see the light of day.  I think this sort of bias plays a large role in infection prevention research - it is so much easier to publish a positive quasi-experimental study showing a benefit than a negative study.  This is why it was so great that after 4+ years of waiting the STAR*ICU study, which was a negative study, was published at the same time as the VA study, which showed a benefit.  This way, we could have a rational discussion with the positive/negative evidence receiving "almost" equal billing.

Ben Goldacre "Backwards step on looking into the future" Guardian 4/23/2011