[HN Gopher] Lancet journal retracts article on hearing aids and ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Lancet journal retracts article on hearing aids and dementia after
       prodding
        
       Author : bookofjoe
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2024-01-06 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (retractionwatch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (retractionwatch.com)
        
       | asplake wrote:
       | Very deaf on one side but I prefer not to wear a hearing aid.
       | Could say that I'm a little relieved.
        
       | criddell wrote:
       | So is hearing loss not associated with dementia or is it that
       | hearing loss _is_ associated with dementia and hearing aids might
       | increase the chances for dementia?
        
         | smcin wrote:
         | Jiang et al. (2023) was not replicable, is what.
         | 
         | I don't see this one retraction proves/disproves causality one
         | way or the other; without looking at all other studies on the
         | same thing.
         | 
         | It _does_ however prove that The Lancet isn 't very scrupulous
         | about forcing authors to retract even when a paper is
         | discredited, or properly crediting third-parties with
         | discovering serious errors (rather than fogging things to
         | suggest the author voluntarily initiated the retraction, which
         | they didn't).
        
       | rogerthis wrote:
       | After a fast search about the subject, what I understood is that
       | the retracted paper had method problems. Some other place says
       | that a meta-analysis (supposedly of papers with correct
       | method/analysis) confirms similar findings, i.e. hearing loss
       | management benefits for dementia.
        
       | notjoemama wrote:
       | > the editors seemed to address the issue he raised only after he
       | and his colleagues submitted a comment article
       | 
       | Yikes. And the Lancet is generally regarded as a very reputable
       | source. After reading the linked post I think I understand their
       | initial defense, a little anyway.
        
         | dash2 wrote:
         | As a social scientist, I'd question that. I have seen _so much_
         | bad social science done in the Lancet that I groan when I hear
         | the name. YMMV, because doctors are in general pretty dumb
         | about social science; maybe it is a great journal in other
         | fields.
        
       | coolhand2120 wrote:
       | It feels like not a day goes by without scientists killing
       | science just a little more.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-06 23:01 UTC)