{
  "abstract": "Trust in epidemiological and health research is essential for evidence-informed public health, but it should not be assumed uncritically. Research findings may appear persuasive because they are novel, highly cited, statistically significant, or published in visible journals, yet these features do not necessarily correspond to reliability, relevance, or usefulness for practice. At the same time, correction mechanisms such as retractions remind us that the scientific record is provisional and that credibility depends not only on discovery, but also on scrutiny, transparency, and self-correction. This scientific session aims to examine how the trustworthiness of epidemiological and health research can be assessed in practice. Rather than treating trustworthiness as an intrinsic property of published articles, the session will explore it as something that must be judged in context: in relation to study design, analytical choices, reporting practices, interpretability, and the broader evidence base. The objective is to encourage a more critical and reflexive approach to reading research among public health professionals, epidemiologists, and decision-makers. The session will open with a presentation on “too-good-to-be-true” effects in epidemiologic studies. Using examples of striking associations linked to common exposures, it will examine how implausibly large effects may arise from methodological weaknesses, including selective reporting, problematic comparison groups, inadequate measurement, and other sources of bias. The second presentation will address retractions as one visible manifestation of scientific self-correction, focusing on patterns across Clinical Medicine, Biomedical Research, and Public Health and Health Services in Europe. Rather than interpreting retractions in a simplistic way, this contribution will consider their ambiguous meaning: they may indicate failure, but also the capacity of the scientific system to detect and correct problems. The final part of the session will consist of a panel discussion with four experienced panellists, who will reflect on what they consider signs of a trustworthy article. The discussion will address practical questions relevant to everyday research appraisal: how to approach surprising findings, how conflicts of interest should be weighed, how much confidence to place in prestige and novelty, what role transparency and reproducibility should play, and how readers can remain critical without sliding into generalized distrust. By combining empirical meta-research with expert reflection, this session will offer a forum for discussing not only why trust in research may be warranted, but also when caution is justified. In doing so, it seeks to promote a more measured and evidence-based approach to the appraisal of published research in public health.\n\nKey messages: • Trustworthy research should be judged through critical appraisal of methods, reporting, transparency, and context, rather than through visibility or novelty alone.\n\n• Meta-research on exaggerated findings and retractions can help public health professionals develop a more cautious and informed approach to the scientific literature.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [],
  "article_type": "abstract",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 3,
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "EUPHA Public Health Epidemiology section, EUPHA Ethics in Public Health section, EUPHAnxt, Public Health Ethics and Law Network - GNAPH"
    },
    {
      "name": "Stefania Boccia"
    },
    {
      "name": "Farhang Tahzib"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1b8gd4at8gnse.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.534",
  "fulltext_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13697952/",
  "id": "1b8gd4at8gnse",
  "issns": [
    "1101-1262",
    "1464-360X"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.534",
  "language": "en",
  "licence": "CC-BY-NC-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY-NC 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "heading",
      "3. PARALLEL PROGRAMME"
    ],
    [
      "heading",
      "AcademicSubjects/MED00860"
    ],
    [
      "heading",
      "AcademicSubjects/SOC01210"
    ],
    [
      "heading",
      "AcademicSubjects/SOC02610"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "1804|Meta-analysis and systematic reviews"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7223679122",
  "pdf_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13697952/pdf/?tool=EBI",
  "pmcid": "PMC13697952",
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-01",
  "publisher": "Oxford University Press",
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1b8gd4at8gnse.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:18:55Z",
      "native_id": "PMC13697952",
      "source": "pmc",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.534"
    },
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:21:44Z",
      "native_id": "PMC:PMC13697952",
      "source": "europepmc",
      "url": "https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13697952"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [],
  "title": "P.9. Scientific session: How do we judge the trustworthiness of epidemiological research? Evidence and expert reflections",
  "title_text": "P.9. Scientific session: How do we judge the trustworthiness of epidemiological research? Evidence and expert reflections",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-10-30T12:34:54Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/1b8gd4at8gnse",
  "venue": "The European Journal of Public Health",
  "versions": []
}