Talk:Further research is needed

A fact from Further research is needed appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 October 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in a sample of medical reviews, useless treatments were just as likely to be recommended for further research as were useful treatments?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Further research is needed.

Wikipedia

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better image

The blobbogram is fictional and perhaps not the best illustration. I considered this image. I've also seen a photo of the phrase on a T-shirt. Anyone have any better ideas? HLHJ (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (edit)

If we can get it up to 1,500 (readable) characters, which would be about a 50% expansion, then it could be sent to WP:DYK and run on the Main Page. It's really a "hooky" subject, so it might be fun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably missed good sources; I had problems researching FRIN because there are so many documents containing the phrase...

You're right, it's currently at about 1000 readable characters (why isn't there a readable characters field in the Page information?). A list of journals that ban FRIN, even an incomplete one, might be sourceable, but I suspect that many don't publish such policies. There are endless poor sources (blogs, for instance) complaining about people misinterpreting the phrase. It would be useful to discuss the reasons behind the bizzarre overuse of the phrase, (reluctance to accept the null hypothesis, maybe? politeness?) if one could find sources for it; I think there's some speculation on that on a couple of extant sources. I'm sure one could make an "In popular culture" section, people joke about this all the time. So yes, there's room for expansion, but more sources would be really good. HLHJ (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Did you know #Eligibility criteria and install the script documented at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck to see how an article stacks up against DYK. I've trawled the existing sources for more content and done some expansion. I think you'll find it's DYK-elligible now. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These three sources apparently all condemn the use of the phrase:

Davidson, Andrew; Delbridge, Elizabeth (2012-02). "How to write a research paper". Paediatrics and Child Health. 22 (2): 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.paed.2011.05.009. ISSN 1751-7222. Retrieved 2017-10-01. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
The Academic Medicine Handbook. Laura Weiss Roberts (ed.). New York, NY: Springer New York. 2013. ISBN 978-1-4614-5692-6 978-1-4614-5693-3. Retrieved 2017-10-01. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)CS1 maint: others (link) (Chapter "How to write a case report")
Goldacre, Ben (2014). I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that: selected writing. ISBN 978-0-00-746248-3. (page four)

I'd appreciate it if anyone with access to these texts would cite them if and as appropriate. HLHJ (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's well over the minimum length now, so I've restructured and edited some text down again for conciseness. We could even stand to cut it down a bit more, and some of my phrasing is still pretty clumsy. Thank you, RexxS, for all your work.

If we wait a day or two with the nomination it would give others time to work on the article. Does this seem reasonable, RexxS, WhatamIdoing? HLHJ (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, HLHJ, you have a few days' grace, but don't forget to nominate; it's such a good topic to see on the Main Page, and it would be shame not to celebrate your work. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point; I didn't know about the 7-days-limit until I read your link, RexxS. Thanks again. I'll try and get the archived source copy (see below) in time. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, RexxS, WhatamIdoing, I think it's ready. Do you agree? Would either of you like to nominate it? HLHJ (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it. Complaint is that it needs a better image, if it is to have an image at all, which is fair. I have asked for some data to make one. Any other ideas are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been approved. Hook given below, with a correct use of WYSIWYM emphasis (thanks to RexxS). Thank you, RexxS, WhatamIdoing, for your help and encouragement. HLHJ (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new lead image and a section on it, plus edited the whole thing down a bit more; please feel free to edit my edits ruthlessly. The article is likely to go on the mainpage as Monday ticks over into Tuesday, UTC: Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. Thanks again, RexxS, WhatamIdoing. HLHJ (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hook

Possible hooks:

Did you know... that medical review authors who think that a treatment is useless are just as likely to recommend researching it further?^[1]
Did you know... that a phrase like "Further research is needed" occurs in over 90% of medical reviews, and authors who think that a treatment is useless are just as likely to recommend researching it further?^[1] [edit]

Because that is far and away the strangest part of this article for me. I've e-mailed the author and the event organizer to find an archived copy of the poster. HLHJ (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about something like, Did you know... that 90% of scientists who believe that a medical treatment is useless still say that "Further research is needed when they write review articles about the treatment"?

Anything like this will do, of course, and we don't have to have the "perfect" one before nominating it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the problem that the study is not of all scientists or all medical reviews. "...a study found that" is a bit lengthy, even if we stick it on the end. I'll plunk out a few more variants for brainstorming, but I think this is probably ready for nomination. I found the site of the author of the citation, and he definitely counts as an expert in the field.

"... further research was recommended by over 90% of a sample of medical reviews, even when they concluded that the treatment was useless?"
"...finding that a treatment was useless did not lower the 90% chance that a medical review would say that further research is needed?"
"...the 90% chance that a medical review will say that further research is needed does not change if the reviewers think the treatment is useless?"
medical reviewers who think the treatment is useless still say that further research is needed in nine reviews out of ten?
medical reviews of useless treatments said that further research is needed in nine reviews out of ten, just as often as reviews of useful treatments?
nine out of ten medical reviews of useless treatments said that further research is needed, just as often as reviews of useful treatments?

HLHJ (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved hook:

" ... that further research was recommended in over 90% of a sample of medical reviews, regardless of whether they concluded that the treatment was useless?" HLHJ (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

FRIN is also used extensively in French and German. No-one obviously writing about the phrase, though. HLHJ (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Vlassov, V (2004). "Further research is needed?". Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts.

Non-medical sources

It would be good to have more non-medicine-related content, since "further research is needed" is hardly limited to medical fields. HLHJ (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual article

I've added this to the List of unusual articles, as I think it's a great example of an article that's "a bit odd, whimsical, or something one would not expect to find in Encyclopædia Britannica." Kudos to RexxS, HLHJ, and all else involved! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adrian J. Hunter! I guess it is a bit odd. The creation of the article was prompted by Alexbrn complaining that some people he was arguing with weren't familiar with FRIN's meaninglessness, and believed that it implied that the research subject wasn't pseudoscience... I've made an addition to your description as a result of a comment on my talk page. HLHJ (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for this article. It's the best! Always lifting me up when I re-read it. Damakru (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Damakru! I'm very happy to hear you like it. I would never have been prompted to start it, and it would still be a tiny stub, were it not for cheering feedback like yours among the help from other editors. HLHJ (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Cochrane_2004-1] Vlassov, V (2004). "Further research is needed?". Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts.

[1]