…and this is a 
Would you believe that ""the largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion, synthesizing the results of 22 studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions" has determined that "abortion harms women's mental health"? It concludes that "10% of all mental health problems and 34.9% of all suicides in women of reproductive age" are caused by abortion. Here's the author's own summary of the results.
Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.
Those numbers are so extravagantly extreme that there ought to be alarm bells going off in your head right now, and the research had better be darned thorough and unimpeachably clean.
As it turns out, it isn't. The author of the paper, Priscilla Coleman, is an anti-abortion advocate, and 11 of the 22 studies sampled for the meta-analysis are by…Priscilla Coleman. Methinks there might be a hint of publication bias there, something that has been confirmed statistically by Ben Goldacre.
Jim Coyne has carried out a thorough dissection of the paper, exposing the statistical games she played with the data.
If you examine Figures 1 and 2 in Coleman's review, you can see that she counts each of her own studies multiple times in her calculation of the effects attributable to abortion. This practice was also roundly criticized in the E-letter responses to her article because each study should only be entered once, if the conditions are met for integrating results of studies in a meta-analysis and providing a test of the statistical significance of the resulting effect size. This may sound like a technical point, but it is something quite basic and taught in any Meta-Analysis 101.
Coleman's calculation of overall effect sizes for the negative mental health effects of abortion involve integrating multiple effects obtained from the same flawed studies into a single effect size that cannot accurately characterize any of the individual effects - anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide - that went into it. Again we are encountering a nonsensical statistic.
And just how good were the papers that Coleman chose to include in her meta-analysis? She claims they were the best, and that others were excluded because of their poor quality, but it seems other investigators hold her work in low esteeem.
…an APA task force report did find that Coleman studies--the ones she included in her meta analysis--had inadequate or inappropriate controls and did not adequately control for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion. A similar verdict about Coleman's work was contained in the draft Royal College of Psychiatrists report that also considered the bulk of her work too weak and biased to be entered into an evaluation of the effects of abortion on mental health.
I did find this comment by Jim Coyne bitterly amusing.
Readers should be to assume that the conclusions of a meta-analysis published in a prestigious journal are valid. After all, the article survived rigorous peer review and probably was strengthened by revisions made in the authors' response to a likely "revise and resubmit" decision.
Obviously, you can't assume that. This is a case where the editors and reviewers failed to do their jobs, and that happens way too often…and now this study has been thoroughly politicized and is being touted by the anti-abortion wackaloons to argue that abortion must be banned…for the good of the women. Which is probably one of the few times they've given a damn about the women involved.
But if you want a good, straightforward summary of why Coleman's paper should have been rejected, that last link is it.
(Also on FtB)
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: EnfantTerrible
|
December 10, 2011 11:41 AM
Amusingly enough, the right-to-liar web site LifeSite News once published an article that including a long critique of Coleman's "research":
And...
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/13/nat-6927/Btw, you know who else blamed mental illnesses on abortion Answer: L. Ron Hubbard.
Posted by: Jim Coyne
|
December 10, 2011 1:39 PM
Is British Journal of Psychiatry becoming an international dumping ground for junk science? I have just discovered another recent flawed meta-analysis with a conflict of interest. This one promotes the reimbursement for long-term psychodynamic therapy by German insurance companies. It essentially duplicates a flawed meta-analysis by the same authors in JAMA. One of them is on a campaign to secure financing of long-term psychodynamic therapy after it was rejected by the insurance companies.
Stay tuned, on Tuesday, I will supplement my coverage of the Coleman meta-analysis with a critique of the second meta-analysis. Watch on the Skeptical Sleuth or follow me on Tiwtter @CoyneoftheRealm.
Posted by: nathanlee2
|
December 10, 2011 3:23 PM
Psychology (and by extension, sociology) have always been suspect to me.
Too often (in my experience), they rely on studies rather than experiments. Yet, the one thing I learned in my class on Ecology is that it's basically impossible to do a decent study on the psychology of a human population. There is no great way to get truly random large samples, and then most people do not phrase questions in a fair way (even on the rare case they try to), and then the definitions used for whatever they're studying are generally biased.
As soon as they said "women's mental health", I assume it's a meaningless study, even before you look at the numerous biases inserted afterwards.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
December 10, 2011 4:28 PM
What word was left out here?
Posted by: frank
|
December 10, 2011 5:12 PM
let's face it, all of the journals out there could use some more quality control besides what's done by reviewers/editors. without being paid for their services you have to take what you can get. unfortunately this lack of quality only really stands out when an article makes a claim that is especially controversial. it's kind of sad to think that the quality of all the 'normal'/'boring' stuff is probably not much better.
Posted by: KingUber
|
December 10, 2011 6:42 PM
Even if the study is flawed, it's not unreasonable to assume that many women would have mental conditions and problems after killing their babies
Posted by: Thin-ice
|
December 10, 2011 7:39 PM
#4
"Cautious"?
"Stupid"?
"Gullible"?
"Incredulous"?
Posted by: Thin-ice
|
December 10, 2011 7:47 PM
#6: It's also not unreasonable to assume that some women might be dead if they had kept the foetus for full term, or that they might suffer severe emotional trauma/damage if forced to keep the product of incest or rape. Your comment shows that you missed the point of the post anyway, which is not that emotional damage happens, but that the basis of the paper is flawed.
Posted by: Willibrord
|
December 10, 2011 11:05 PM
But here's a nice antidote study, which finds a strong relationship between unwanted pregnancy (whether aborted or not) and mental health problems, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than Coleman's anti-choice rubbish:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/09/abortions-mental-illness-survey?newsfeed=true
Posted by: informania
|
December 11, 2011 7:17 AM
Confounding variables anyone?
@6 It's also not unreasonable to assume women in a position (i.e. unstable environment) that might facilitate development of a mental condition, getting pregnant while not being in a good position to raise a child, ultimately resulting in a higher abortion rate for these women.
Posted by: KingUber
|
December 11, 2011 3:33 PM
Why is it that whenever you're pro-choice, people automatically accuse you of wanting to outlaw abortion even if it would lead to the mother's death?
Posted by: michelemanion
|
December 11, 2011 3:52 PM
Thin Ice--it's 'able.'
KingUber--what would be really interesting is a meta-analysis of available studies that evaluate whether there is a correlation between people on Internet forums who identify themselves with grandiose titles--e.g. referring to the notion of being 'greater than' or associating themselves with royalty--and/or who feel comfortable dictating the behavior of the entire population based on their personal religious beliefs and narcissistic personality disorder.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
December 11, 2011 4:33 PM
Because we know from prior experience that most any ass who deliberately chooses words such as (emphasis mine)are really pro female slavery and forced birth -- how could those horrible unnatural mothers murder those innocent babies !They must be stopped !!!! (Unless, maybe, they can prove that having the baby will kill them.) And god forbid that a woman might be allowed to choose having a medical abortion without being forced to listen to a state-approved speech that the abortion itself might kill her, might cause her suicidal depression, might make her infertile, might cause breast cancer; then be forced to view a sonogram of the fetus; then sign state-mandated forms attesting that she has indeed been informed of all those things and still heartlessly wishes to proceed with terminating "her baby's life".
Yeah, we've seen it all before. No one's fooled that people like you are "pro-choice" in any real meaning of the words "pro-choice".
Posted by: KingUber
|
December 11, 2011 6:12 PM
I was saying you guys are pro-choice. That is what you like to be called, right? I'm not calling you pro-death or anti-life or any of those pejorative words.
I have no religious beliefs.
I think if the mother's life is at risk an abortion can be justified.
Otherwise I am against abortion.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
December 11, 2011 7:59 PM
Yep, like I said, you are a forced-birther. You're pro-slavery (for women only, of course, because wpmen aren't really persons in your little heart.). You want to be a slave yourself, great, go for it, but you have no right to impose your immoral fetus fetish on anyone else.No human being should ever be enslaved to your perverted desire to be "against abortion".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
December 11, 2011 10:47 PM
The topic here is the quality of the science, not what you anyone else thinks is reasonable.
a) Pronouns: learn how to use them.
b) No such accusation was made.
c) It's not unreasonable to assume it.
Why should anyone give a fuck? Even if you hadn't already demonstrated yourself to be dumber than a sack of rocks, your opinion would be irrelevant. But if you are against abortion, then you should be for improved sex education, available and affordable birth control, and improving educational and economic conditions for young people, especially young women. If you're conservative or right winger or libertarian, then you're just an asshole.
Posted by: etienne.baudoux
|
December 12, 2011 10:36 AM
Such a piece of propaganda in what you expect to be a peer-reviewed journal is indeed very dangerous when used by our "pro life" activists friends.
The paper deserves retraction AND full scale exposure of the intentionally misleading statements it contains.
Somebody who writes such prose only shows his/her absence of knowledge of the topic.
Posted by: oicur12
|
December 13, 2011 3:48 AM
KingUber is obviously a subconscious substitution for King(of)Uterus. A clear manifestation of the womb envy that drives some men to dominate women and obtain control their uterus. In less pathological cases, men may dress like women or take male lovers like women, in an attempt to have a womb like women do.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 13, 2011 6:11 AM
Who gives a shit what your opinion is? What counts is that you allow others, in particular the woman, to make the decision for herself, without you making that decision for her. That is the real problem with the anti-choice crowd. They are afraid of responsible woman making a choice they don't agree with.Posted by: Stanton
|
December 13, 2011 9:00 AM
@18, please do not demean and denigrate other groups of people, i.e., crossdressers and homosexuals, in your attempts to insult KingUber.
If only this, please be aware that crossdressers and homosexuals behave as such NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE JEALOUS OF WOMEN HAVING UTERUSES. Saying that they behave so is false, and very bigoted.
Posted by: oicur12
|
December 13, 2011 1:12 PM
@20, OOh, all caps and everything. We know somebody who is NOT in denial, don't we?
Please do not demean and denigrate my comment by characterizing it as an attempt at an insult. It was an attempt to counter KingUber's non-falsifiable irrational opinion that a fetus is a person, with an equally non-falsifiable, but less harmful, metaphor for human behavior.
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 13, 2011 5:33 PM
Then, oicur12, if your comment is not supposed to be an insult, then how come it reeks of homophobia and bigotry?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0qSL08cj2.gWPyCeJQd5twP288iSpoIUoFNe2hdnSw--#fddc7
|
December 16, 2011 10:47 AM
oicur12: You don't get it, do you. Going after someone who is legitimately sexist does not make it okay to also go after gays and transvestites. They have nothing to do with the target of your ire. It doesn't benefit anyone to use the "drive by shooting" method of pwnage, not only taking down your intended target, but the four or five civilians standing to the left and right of him. Gays have sex with people of the same gender because that's who they're genuinely attracted to, and transvestites wear women's clothing because it genuinely feels more natural on them. Are you getting it now?