Many people reading the report of a clinical study or a meta-analysis of a number of studies jump down the page to the main message - the Conclusion. This may lead to wrong interpretations, it seems. Stanford University researchers have analyzed the relationship between the actual data and the conclusions reported for a number of meta-analyses, and posted their findings in the British Medical Journal.

There was, in many cases, a disconnect between the actual data obtained (in the Results section) and the interpretation of the findings in the Conclusions. Of 124 meta-analyses examined, 40% had financial ties to one drug company. And of these, 55% had favorable Results, whereas 95% had favorable Conclusions. On the other hand, meta-analyses with financial ties to non-profit groups had excellent agreement between results and conclusions.

The authors of the analysis emphasize that they found nothing in the raw data from the drug-company sponsored studies that was defective; it was only the over-optimistic interpretation of the findings that deserved criticism.

This interesting analysis reveals the weakness of the peer-review system followed by many eminent medical journals. And a word to those of you who 'check the abstract': give a few minutes to comparing the Results section with the Conclusions - you may be surprised.