standard we do not believe that the results are reliable. in fact, julia says out of 11 star criteria, priscilla coleman s paper does not need any. i have never seen paper does not need any. i have never seen it paper does not need any. i have never seen it before. paper does not need any. i have never seen it before. usually i never seen it before. usually when we critiqued a meta analysis there may be four or five of the criteria are met and have a good one has eight or ten but i have never called for the retraction of the paper before. this is a very serious lapse of scientific integrity. professor little argues, for example the professor, did not give a detail as to how she previous research to use for her work would not be wreck complicated. the scientific quality of those studies was not clearly assessed and littrell says that combining studies to produce an overall average, common s method can t have the same woman multiple times. they spoken to in independent expert who a
chanting: this decision must not stand. all legal threats to uk publishers may be having a ripple effect on major us health care decisions. in 2011, us psychologist professor priscilla coleman produced research concluding women who ve had an abortion have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. the paper was mentioned in brief submitted to the us supreme court as part of efforts to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. and it was cited by a texas judge who ruled that a major drug used for abortion should be withdrawn. but this influential research published in the britishjournal of psychiatry has been widely criticised. some argue it doesn t meet best practice guidance. because it does not meet those standards we don t believe that the results are reliable or credible. and we called in 2012 for the retraction of that paper. the royal college of psychiatrists, which owns thejournal, also co authored a review which found methodological problems brought colman s results
by special interest groups. this one was part of efforts to overturn the historic rowe versus wade decision. priscilla coleman herself has been an expert witness in more than 20 court cases. thank you ma am, you may have a seat for your comfort. but this now influential paper, linking abortion and poor mental health, has been controversial from the moment it was released in 2011. so a colleague of my brought my attention to the paper and said what do you think of this meta analysis? and i looked at it, and was really concerned. professorjulia littell is one of those who wrote to the britishjournal of psychiatry, which published this research, asking for it to be taken down. she points to guidelines for this kind of study, called amstar. because it does not meet those standards, we don t believe that the results are reliable or credible. in fact, julia littell says, out of 11 amstar criteria, priscilla coleman s paper doesn t meet any. i have never seen it before.
the reaction was negative. the journal s 2011 editor felt, despite flaws, it was important to have the paper s viewpoint expressed. when we approached professor coleman for comment, she emphasised her long experience publishing and sharing research. she argues there are no hard and fast rules for these studies, and her work met relevant recommendations. but with the research still influencing us health care in 2022, scientists who complained 11 years earlier were concerned. having deeply flawed manuscripts in the scientific literature emperils our ability to craft sound public policy. i gathered a group of scholars, who had previously published concerns about this paper, in response to the fact that the british journal of psychiatry platformed a new research integrity group. so we saw this as an opportunity to resubmit our concerns. priscilla coleman alleges criticism of her work is driven