[The image of the dentist. Part 1: Results of a literature search]

The dentist enjoys a high degree of professional independence. He is seen as reliable and productive at work while carrying a big responsibility. His foremost social responsibility is to treat patients suffering from toothache and to promote oral health prevention for all people, regardless of their social status. At the same time, the dentist is prestigious, respected and honest. Comparable to other professions, however, dentistry is under public pressure. Media often associate the dental profession with negative properties such as sadism, immorality, or madness. Does the image of the dental profession suffer in this context? Our first article discusses the environmental factors which are identifiable to influence both each dentist and ultimately the whole image of dentistry.

Clinicopathologic correlations of silent corticotroph adenomas of the pituitary: report of four cases and literature review

Silent corticotroph adenomas (SCA) are rare pituitary tumors with histologic hallmarks of corticotroph differentiation, including ACTH immunoreactivity, but lacking clinical evidence of Cushing's syndrome. We report on four female patients, aged 19-66 years, each presenting with a nonfunctional macroadenoma. Leading symptoms were headache in two cases and visual field deficits in one. One patient was incidentally diagnosed while undergoing cranial MRI for an unrelated condition. Three patients had marked obesity; none of them presented constitutional signs of Cushing's syndrome. Serum cortisol levels were moderately elevated in the two patients systematically tested in this respect. Marginal to moderate hyperprolactinemia was present in two cases. Two patients also were shown to be deficient in either gonadotroph or thyrotroph axis, while a third had a combined insufficiency of both gonadotroph and thyrotroph axis. MRI scans revealed intratumoral hemorrhage and/or cystic change in three cases, as well as tumor-related occlusive hydrocephalus in one. The latter patient was biopsied only, while the remaining underwent gross total resection. Histologically, all four lesions were diagnosed as SCA subtype I displaying intense immunoreactivity for ACTH. In three tumors, scattered cells coexpressed PRL as well. In addition, Crooke's hyaline change was noted in a significant number of tumor cells and in residual non-neoplastic corticotrophs in one case each. With MIB-1 labeling indices of 1-3%, none of the tumors qualified as atypical adenoma. We conclude that SCAs are more likely to be discovered as expansile tumors, whose advanced local space-occupying character at surgery rather than an inherently aggressive growth potential may negatively influence the clinical outcome. Subtle morphologic evidence of corticotroph suppression in residual pituitary adjacent to tumor lends further support to literature data indicating minimal or intermittent functional activity in this tumor type.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.