12/11/2023
UpToDate is more reliable, but you would need a subscription. Dr Google is not that reliable.
Don't be fooled: PubMed doesn't guarantee good science!
Many people turn to PubMed for scientific information, but being listed there doesn't guarantee a paper's quality. Think of PubMed as the Google of life sciences research. It's vast and powerful, but like Google, it requires critical thinking to navigate.
While PubMed offers access to millions of valuable scientific papers, some of them are not credible. Simply being searchable via PubMed does NOT guarantee quality. Here are some examples:
🔎Retracted Papers: Andrew Wakefield's completely fraudulent MMR-autism paper, though retracted, remains listed.
🔎Predatory Journals: In the academic jungle, predatory journals prey on authors' desperation to publish. These low-quality journals publish anything for a fee, and some of their papers are listed on PubMed. (It is worth mentioning that, even within the realm of reputable journals, some require authors to pay an access fee, either as a mandatory open-access model or an optional path to wider dissemination.)
🔎Questionable Studies: Even quality journals can publish flawed research. While the peer-review process is a very useful and effective safeguard, it is not perfect.
🔎Bad science slips through the cracks: Journals like "Medical Hypotheses" publish speculative theories, including the completely unfounded claim that ej*******on cures a stuffy nose.
Another example is homeopathy. Despite thousands of PubMed listings, this pre-scientific practice lacks any good evidence to support the benefit of homeopathy except, occasionally, through the power of placebo. (We have tackled this topic MANY times—please check our searchable database: uspodsources.com for more!)
It takes skill to be able to critically appraise the validity and reliability of research—not all studies are created equal! So, the next time someone throws a PubMed paper at you, don't assume it's gospel.
One more thing: be wary of confirmation bias (i.e., the tendency to selectively seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, while disregarding or undervaluing evidence that contradicts them).
Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300231/
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/staffpubs/lo/TECH_V36_N4_JulAug16_Marill.pdf
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/ (*retracted)
https://www.elsevier.com/journals/medical-hypotheses/0306-9877/guide-for-authors
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18723292/