Guía para la evaluación de proyectos de investigación en ciencias de la salud

Medicina Clinica

Volumn 108, Issue 12, 1997, Pages 460-471

  Guallar, Eliseo ^a   Conde, José ^b   De La Cal, Miguel A ^c   Martín Moreno, José M ^a  

^a INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III   (Spain)

^b Agencia Evaluacion Tecnologias S   (Spain)

^c Centro Coordinador REUNI   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD;

ETHICS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 0010522086     PISSN: 00257753     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. Responsible science. Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Volume I. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.
2. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. On being a scientist. Responsible conduct in research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
3. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272: 96-97.
4. Smith R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. Br Med J 1988; 296: 774-777.
5. Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA 1986; 256: 2.391-2.392.
6. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, 10-12 May, Chicago, III. JAMA 1990; 263: 1.317-1.414.
7. Rennie D, Flanagin A. The second international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA 1994; 272: 91.
8. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Londres: The Nuffeld Provincial Hospital Trust, 1985.
9. Williamson JW, Goldschmidt PG, Colton T. The quality of medical literature: an analysis of validation assessments. En Bailar JC, Mosteller F, editores. Medical uses of statistics. Waltham, MA: N Engl J Med Books, 1986.
10. Altman D. The scandal of medical research. Br Med J 1994; 308: 283-284.
11. Marín E. Evaluación de proyectos de investigación. Cuadernos Perseo 1991; 1: 22-24.
12. Biomedical and Health Research Programme, BIOMED 2 (1994-1998). Guide to the evaluation and the selection of proposals. Bruselas: European Commission, Directorate General XII for Science, Research and Development 1996; 1-22.
13. PHS grants policty statement. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1987.
14. National Institutes of Health. NIH Advisory Committees. Authority, structure, function, members. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1993.
15. Birkett NJ. The review-process for applied-research grant proposals: suggestions for revision. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 150: 1.227-1.229.
16. o 101-CM. Evaluación de proyecto de investigación ciencias médicas. Madrid: Agencia Nacional de Evaluación y Prospectiva (ANEP), 1990.
17. Medicina Clínica. Manual de estilo. Publicaciones biomédicas. Barcelona: Doyma, 1993.
18. Camí J. Conflicto de intereses e investigación clínica. Med Clin (Barc) 1995; 105: 174-179.
19. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 573-576.
20. Witt MD, Gostin LO. Conflict of interest dilemmas in biomedical research. JAMA 1994; 271: 547-551.
21. Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medicial Association. Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships. JAMA 1990; 263: 2.790-2.793.
22. American Federation for Clinical Research guidelines for avoiding conflict of interest. Clin Res 1990; 38: 239-240.
23. Guidelines for dealing with faculty conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest in research. Acad Med 1990; 65: 485-495.
24. Glantz SA, Bero LA, Inappropriate and appropriate selection of «peers» in grant review. JAMA 1994; 272: 114-116.
25. Olsson CA, Kennedy WA. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health, J Urol 1995; 154: 1.866-1.869.
26. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 422-428.
27. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, editores. Diseño de la investigación clínica. Un enfoque epidemiológico. Barcelona: Doyma, 1993.
28. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Epidemiologíe clínica. Una ciencia bàsica para la medicina clínica Barcelona: Panamericana, 1994.
29. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials. Littleton, MA: PSG Publishing, 1985.
30. Bakke OM, Carné X, García-Alonso F. Ensayos clínicos con medicamentos. Fundamentos básicos, metodología y prática. Barcelona: Doyma, 1994.
31. Kelsey JL, Thompson WD, Evans A. Methods in observational epidemiology, Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
32. Schelesselman JJ. Case-control studies. Design, conduct, analysis. Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
33. Porta M. La observación clínica y el razonamiento epidemiológico. Med Clin (Barc) 1986; 87: 816-819.
34. Roca J. Cómo y para qué hacer un protocolo. Med Clin (Barc) 1996; 106: 257-262.
35. o 136: 17.106-17.110.
36. o 64: 10.255-10.259.
37. o 182: 23.554-23.559.
38. o 64: 10.244-10.248.
39. o 285.
40. o 312:
41. Gômez de la Cámara A. Análisis de la estructura metodológica de los proyectos de investigación presentados al Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Tesis Doctoral, 1995.
42. Sutherland HJ, Meslin EM, Da Cunha R, Till JE. Judging clinical research questions: what criteria are used? Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 1.427-1.430.
43. Dupont WD, Plummer Jr WD. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11: 116-128.
44. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial: survey of two sets of «negative» trials. En: Bailar III JC, Mosteller F, editores. Medical uses of statistics. Boston: N Engl J Med Books, 1992; 357-373.
45. Browner WS, Newman TB, Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Preparación para estimar el tamaño de la muestra: hipótesis y principios subyacentes. En: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, editores. Diseño de la investigación clínica. Un enfoque epidemiológico. Barcelona: Doyma, 1993; 141-151.
46. o 114: 14.346-14.364.
47. Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Glass KC, Skrutkowska M. Monitoring clinical research: an obligation unfulfilled Can Med Assoc J 1995; 152: 1.973-1.980.
48. CPMP Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products. Good Clinical Practice for trials on medicinal products in the European Community. Document 111/3976/88-EN (Final). Bruselas: Commission of the European Communities, 1991.
49. Hutchinson DR, Martinez-Trueba A. Guía práctica de GCP para investigadores. Surrey: Brookwood Medical Publications, 1993.
50. a ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 1995.
51. a ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent, 1988.
52. Thompson SK, Sampling. Nueva York: Wiley-lnterscience, 1992.
53. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume I. The analysis fo case-control studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980.
54. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II. The design and analysis of cohort studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987.
55. Miller RG. Survival analysis. Nueva York: Wiley and Sons, 1981.
56. Pettiti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
57. Bailar III JC, Mosteller F. Medical uses of statistics. Boston: N Engl J Med Books, 1992.
58. Bailar III JC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 266-273.
59. Committee Proprietary Medicinal Products. Biostatistical methodology in clinical trials in applications for marketing authorizations for medicinal products. Bruselas: Comunidad Económica Europea, Note for Guidance III/3630/92, 1992; 165-188.
60. Armitage P. Interim analysis in clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10: 925-937.
61. Wittes J. Behind closed doors: the data monitoring board in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1993; 12: 419-424.
62. Asamblea Médica Mundial. Declaración de Helsinki de la Asociación Médica Mundial. Recomendaciones para guiar a los medicos en la investigatión biomédica en personas (con enmiendas adoptadas en Tokio, 1975, Japon, 1983 y Hong Kong, 1989). En: Bakke OM, Carné X, García-Alonso F, editores. Ensayos clínicos con medicamentos. Fundamentos bésicos, metodología y pràctica. Barcelona: Doyma, 1994.
63. o 17. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Secretaria Técnica, 1990; 121-131.
64. Gracia D. Fundamentos de bioética. Madrid: EUDEMA, 1989.
65. NIH Division of Research Grants. Guide for assigned reviewers' preliminary comments on research grant applications. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1987.
66. o 262: 37.037-37.045.
67. o 67: 8.509-8.512.
68. Ricoy JR. La financiación de la investigación médica. Med Clin (Barc) 1993; 100 (Supl 1): 6-8.
69. Priority-Setting Group, Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technology. Report of a pilot study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
70. Comisión Interministerial de Clencia y Tecnología. Ill Plan Nacional de I+D (1996-1999). Madrid: Secretaria General del Plan Nacional de I+D, Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología, 1995.
71. Angel M, Relman AS. Fraud in biomedical research. A time for congressional restraint. [Editorial]. New Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1.462-1.463.
72. Garfield E. Uses and misuses of citation frequency. Curr Cont 1985; 43: 3-9.
73. Porta M. Factor de impacto bibliográfico (Science Citation Index y Social Sciences Citation Index) de las principales revistas de medicina preventiva, salud pública y biomedicina. Algunas cifras, algunas impresiones. Rev Salud Pública 1993; 3: 313-347.
74. National Institutes of Health. NIH peer review of research grant applications. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1996.
75. Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31-49.
76. Sacristán JA, Soto J, Galende I. Evaluación crítica de ensayos clínicos. Utilización de un checklist. Med Clin (Barc) 1993; 100: 1.191-1.199.
77. Realini JP, Goldzieher JW. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease: a critique of the epidemiologic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 792-798.
78. Elwood JM. Causal relationships in medicine: a practical appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988.
79. Longnecker MP, Berlin JA, Orza MJ, Chalmers TC. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption in relation to risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1988; 260: 652-656.
80. Friedenreich CM, Brandt RF, Riboli E. Influence of methodologic factors in a pooled analysis of 13 case-control studies of colorectal cancer and dietary fiber. Epidemiology 1994; 5: 66-79.
81. Gardner MJ, Machin D, Campbell MJ. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies, En: Gardner MJ, Altman DG, eds. Statististics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. Londres: Br Med J 1989; 101-108.
82. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into metaanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 255-265.
83. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytical methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 297-300.
84. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Reply to re: a critical look at some popular meta-analytical methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 300-301.
85. Gómez de la Cámara A, Análisis de las propuestas de investigación sobre Atención Primaria presentadas al Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria. Aten Primaria 1993; 1: 8-15.
86. Smith R. Promoting research into peer review. Br Med J 1994; 309: 143-144.
87. Vener KJ, Feuer EJ, Gorelic L. A statistical model validating triage for the peer review process: keeping the competitive applications in the review pipeline. FASEB J 1993; 7: 1.312-1.319.
88. Meijman FJ, De Melker RA. The extent of inter- and intrareviewer agreement on the classification and assessment of designs of single-practice research, Fam Pract 1995; 12: 93-97.
89. McNut RA, Evans T, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1990; 263: 1.371-1.376.
90. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994; 272: 143-146.
91. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994; 272: 147-149.
92. Lesurf J. More democracy, please, at the SERC [editorial]. New Sci 1991; 131: 12.