Martin Holst

PhD student in meta-research (Health Data Sciences) @questbih | Psychotherapist | evidence-based healthcare, open science., science & health policy | he/him

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

@DoctorZen @Maclomaclee It partly depends on the impact factor whether your papers are accepted for the PhD. Also, there is a rule that, if you publish in a high-impact factor journal, you only need to hand in one paper (instead of three) for the PhD.

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

None of the retroactively prospective trials reported the start date change in their accompanying publication. (5/5)

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

In our latest study, we found 235 out of 11,908 clinical trials (2.0%) to be 'retroactively prospective'. What is retroactively prospective trial registration, you wonder? See this thread... 🧵 (1/5)

https://t.co/Ykmy9Am5JJ

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

While this change could be amistake or a legitimate edits, it could also mean that a retrospectively registered trial that was made to appear as a prospectively registered trial, which would lead to biases unapparent to reviewers. (4/5)

[Einstein Foundation @Einstein_Berlin]

The Early Career #EinsteinFoundationAward2023 goes to the Responsible Research Assessment Initiative headed by @gaertner_anne @tudresden_de. The project aims to identify, test, & establish novel criteria for the assessment of researchers and their output. (1/2)

[Christina Berndt @ChristinaBerndt]

Studien mit Patienten sind wertvoll für die Erforschung neuer Therapien – aber nur, wenn sie einem festgelegten Schema folgen. Doch deutsche Unis biegen sich dieses Schema häufig zurecht, wie eine Analyse aus #PlosMedicine zeigt. Mit @m_grill via @SZ https://t.co/AMKEYPXmgU

[PLOS Medicine @PLOSMedicine]

In this meta-research study, Martin Holst and colleagues investigate changes to prespecified primary outcomes in the historic registries of clinical trials. @MartinHolst9 @m_haslberger @Strech_Da @LGHemkens @questbih @berlinnovation @ChariteBerlin https://t.co/pCpWzxcF6U

[TranspariMED @TranspariMED]

German university #clinicaltrials:

"Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials"

- by @MartinHolst9 et al from @questbih

https://t.co/1rF43xEHTc @NDevito1

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

Happy to have played a small part in this, too!

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

"Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19–4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86–11.35) after removing false positives." https://t.co/MPWdCD6nj5

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

This is just one central statement of this super interesting paper, which looked at the association of the supervisor’s engagement and their PhD student’s engagement in open science (more specifically, open access and open data).

[Thorsten Padberg @PadbergThorsten]

Psychologie wird die Welt nicht retten 🤷🏼‍♂️

https://t.co/bTILAckudW

[TranspariMED @TranspariMED]

@DelwenFranzen @martinringsten @GustavNilsonne @MartinHolst9 @LGHemkens @reshmagar @jsross119
FYI - contacting sponsors about missing clinical trial results
https://t.co/C1RJ6Ed49h

[TranspariMED @TranspariMED]

41% of German university trials switched primary outcomes

14% had ‘hidden’ discrepancies

This can lead to biased or misleading conclusions for health care decision-making, argue @MartinHolst9 & @m_haslberger

https://t.co/DtVcR0KUbo #QRP @arzneitelegramm @aerztezeitung

[Lars G. Hemkens @LGHemkens]

"Hidden changes" of primary outcomes in trials are difficult: The primary outcome definition in the paper and in the latest/newest registry entry is identical, but when you dig deeper & look at older registry entries you see the outcome changed.

We found this in 1 of 7 trials…

[martin haslberger @m_haslberger]

New preprint with @MartinHolst9, @LGHemkens, @Strech_Da, et al., looking at primary outcome changes that are „hidden within the registry“, i.e., not apparent from comparing the latest reg. entry with the publication. https://t.co/sdjsiABHtR

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

@NDevito1 Huuuuge congratulations, Nick!! So happy for you, Dr DeVito!!

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

@IoanaA_Cristea @Menschen_Kind Which has led to some interesting consequences. An organisation tried to get a range of non-evidence-based (and sometimes, frankly, weird) techniques approved unter the label "humanistic therapy". Did not work out though...

[Martin Holst @MartinHolst9]

@IoanaA_Cristea @Menschen_Kind The issue is that the scientific advisory board requires evidence only for the *broad* umbrella method, not for every technique within it. So if "Verhaltenstherapie" (behavior therapy) is approved, so are DBT, ACT, CBASP, schema therapy, etc.