FX uses the scientific method better then JAMA?

U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Tue Dec 12 06:05:12 EST 1995



"Brian W. Tague" <taguebw at wfu.edu> wrote:

>From JAMA's homepage:
>The Effect of Sugar on Behavior or Cognition in Children
>
>A Meta-analysis
>
>Mark L. Wolraich, MD; David B. Wilson, PhD; J. Wade White, MD

Thanks for going to the trouble of finding and posting this.
Something I probably should've done (and read) myself before
starting this thread? ...nah.  :-)

>Data Sources.--Studies were identified through a literature search
>of the MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases and the authors' files
>using sugar, sucrose, and attention deficit disorder as
>the search terms.

>Data Synthesis.--Sixteen reports met the inclusion criteria for a
>total of 23 within-subject design studies. The weighted mean
>effect size and related statistics for each of the 14 measurement
>constructs revealed that although the range for these means was
>from - 0.14 for direct observations and up to +0.30 for academic
>tests, the 95% confidence interval for all 14 mean effect sizes
>included 0.

Oh GREAT!  It's a study of various studies...

Well... this certainly doesn't tell us anything at all at the
various credibility/believability of all the different papers
involved (how many of those in Medline were even peer-reviewed in
the first place?).

All this really tells me is that this is obviously a mainstream
position of the field...  and this JAMA paper just goes to the
trouble of pointing that out for us by adding up all the various
studies and weighing the total results for us.

But you know what my mom use to say... if you had shit in one hand
and air in the other; which one do you think would weigh the most?

>The researchers write: "This meta-analysis of the reported studies
>to date found that sugar (mainly sucrose) does not affect the
>behavior or cognitive performance of children.

I love how forcefully they state this... typical science language -
 stating this almost as now we can consider this a *fact*!

>The researchers conclude: "Although the current evidence gives no
>support for the effect of sugar on behavior, there are not
>currently enough studies to reach a definitive conclusion.

Oh... but you must always include a back door for your self... just
in case of that off chance you may be wrong.


How I love Science in the 90's!  The blind just blindly follows the
blind.

-Kathy



More information about the Bioforum mailing list