Abstract
Objective:
To identify problems in the derivation of conclusions from evidence in psychiatry research.
Method:
The scientific model of falsificationism is described as determining the logical requirements for proving conclusions from research evidence. Common types of problematic conclusions are identified, and examples from the current research literature are given.
Results:
Poorly formed conclusions are based on inadequate hypotheses, ambiguously phrased, blind to negative findings, fallacious in logic, or neglectful of alternative explanations.
Conclusions:
The risks of accepting poorly formed conclusions are premature closure of scientific investigations, poor basis for decisions in psychiatric practice, and provision of misinformation to patients. It is recommended that practitioners be attentive to this aspect of critically appraising research.