Wait a minute...did someone actually publish an article on how most clinical medical research isn't useful, AND that we should change how we perform clinical research?  Yes, colleagues, and not just anyone...this work comes to us from the Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRICS) at Stanford.  If you're a fan of statistics, quality improvement, & the art involved with "the literature" you already know that they're correct!  Here, then, is a new favorite article for your bank of clinical articles.  Please don't take this to mean that we can't learn and improve or that all literature is bunk.  Take it to mean that we must be very careful about what clinical research we allow to change what we do.  After all, as a wise clinician once taught me:  if 80% of articles ask the wrong question, another 80% use the wrong methods to answer the question they ask, and another 80% draw the wrong conclusions from the results they get (of course, some articles have two or three of these issues at once), shouldn't we be very selective in which work we accept as valid?  And, because we know that, shouldn't we work to change how we do things as a profession to focus on more meaningful & applicable clinical research?