Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research

The Lancet

Volumn 383, Issue 9913, 2014, Pages 267-276

  Glasziou, Paul ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^b   Bossuyt, Patrick ^c   Boutron, Isabelle ^d   Clarke, Mike ^e,f   Julious, Steven ^g   Michie, Susan ^h   Moher, David ⁱ   Wager, Elizabeth ⁱ  

^a BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d INSERM   (France)

^e QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁱ Sideview   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PREDICTION RESEARCH; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REGISTRATION; RESEARCH; SELECTION BIAS; STUDY DESIGN; WRITING;

EID: 84892575232     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. Lang TA, Secic M. How to report statistics in medicine, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2006.
2. Bradford Hill A. Reasons for writing. BMJ 1965; 2: 870.
3. Carp J. The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature. Neuroimage 2012; 63: 289-300.
4. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009; 4: e5738.
5. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86-89.
6. Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-65.
7. Wager E. Publishing clinical trial results: the future beckons. PLoS Clin Trials 2006; 1: e31.
8. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 60.
9. Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014; published online Jan 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5.
10. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 602-09.
11. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336: 1472-74.
12. Glenton C, Underland V, Kho M, Pennick V, Oxman AD. Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 770-78.
13. DuffJM, Leather H, Walden EO, LaPlant KD, George TJ Jr. Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 702-05.
14. Pino C, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Inadequate description of educational interventions in ongoing randomized controlled trials. Trials 2012; 13: 63.
15. Fontela PS, Pant Pai N, Schiller I, Dendukuri N, Ramsay A, Pai M. Quality and reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in TB, HIV and malaria: evaluation using QUADAS and STARD standards. PLoS One 2009; 4: e7753.
16. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al, for the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41-44.
17. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 2009; 4: e7824.
18. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8: e1000412.
19. Groenwold RHH, Van Deursen AMM, Hoes AW, Hak E. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol 2008; 18: 746-51.
20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453-57.
21. Little J, Higgins JPT, Ioannidis JP, et al, and the STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e22.
22. Bouwmeester W, ZuithoffNP, Mallett S, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2012; 9: 1-12.
23. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM, for the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1180-84.
24. Janssens AC, Ioannidis JP, van Duijn CM, Little J, Khoury MJ, for the GRIPS Group. Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies: the GRIPS Statement. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1000420.
25. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med 2010; 8: e1001069.
26. Schilling LM, Kozak K, Lundahl K, Dellavalle RP. Inaccessible novel questionnaires in published medical research: hidden methods, hidden costs. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 1141-44.
27. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009; 339: b3496-3496.
28. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol 2009; 28: 690-701.
29. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ. Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 613-18.
30. Molnar FJ, Man-Son-Hing M, Dalziel WB, et al. Assessing the quality of newspaper medical advice columns for elderly readers. CMAJ 1999; 161: 393-95.
31. Allen ES, Burke JM, Welch ME, Rieseberg LH. How reliable is science information on the web? Nature 1999; 402: 722.
32. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006; 67: 792-97.
33. Blumle A, Meerpohl J, Rucker G, Antes G, Schumacher M, von Elm E. Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles. BMJ 2011; 342: d1828.
34. Hopewell S, Hirst A, Collins GS, Mallett S, Yu L-M, Altman DG. Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials. Trials 2011; 12: 253.
35. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001216.
36. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3081.
37. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e217.
38. Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 1238-44.
39. Jamieson NB, Morran DC, Morton JP, et al. MicroRNA molecular profi les associated with diagnosis, clinicopathologic criteria, and overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 534-45.
40. van Walraven C, Davis D, Forster AJ, Wells GA. Time-dependent bias was common in survival analyses published in leading clinical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 672-82.
41. Collins GS, Mallett S, Omar O, Yu L-M. Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting. BMC Med 2011; 9: 103.
42. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al, for the CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 781-88.
43. Chowers MY, Gottesman BS, Leibovici L, Pielmeier U, Andreassen S, Paul M. Reporting of adverse events in randomized controlled trials of highly active antiretroviral therapy: systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64: 239-50.
44. Hopewell S, Wolfenden L, Clarke M. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 597-602.
45. Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Close RJH. Graphical literacy: the quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 317-22.
46. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignifi cant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010; 303: 2058-64.
47. Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MMG. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology 2013; 267: 581-88.
48. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1202-05.
49. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454-65.
50. Forbes TL. Author disclosure of conflict of interest in vascular surgery journals. J Vasc Surg 2011; 54 (suppl): 55S-58S.
51. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e20.
52. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2012; 344: e4178.
53. Boutron I, Estellat C, Guittet L, et al. Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2006; 3: e425.
54. Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is "fi t for purpose": EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Evid Based Med 2009; 14: 132-34.
55. Wager E, Middleton P. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 4: MR000002.
56. Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts lsubmitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011; 343: d6783.
57. Kiritchenko S, de Bruijn B, Carini S, Martin J, Sim I. ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publications. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010; 10: 56.
58. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1999; 87: 437-43.
59. Schriger DL, Altman DG. Inadequate post-publication review of medical research. BMJ 2010; 341: c3803.
60. Altman DG. Unjustifi ed restrictions on letters to the editor. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e126.
61. Picard P, Tramèr MR. Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 963-69.
62. Habre C, Elia N, Popping D, Tramer M. Impact of a systematic review on subsequent clinical research: the case of the prevention of propofol injection pain. Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; Chicago, IL, USA; Sept 8-10, 2013. 29 (abstr).
63. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 50-55.
64. Kjaergard LL, Gluud C. Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 407-10.
65. Gotzsche PC. Statistics in medicine reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 1987; 295: 654-56.
66. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis NG, Ioannidis JP. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA 2007; 298: 2517-26.
67. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientifi c papers. BMJ 1999; 318: 1224.
68. Jefferson T. Structuring the discussion of scientifi c papers. Results of single studies must be assessed in context of relevant systematic reviews. BMJ 1999; 319: 580.
69. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting Working Group on Public. Lancet 2010; 376: 20-21.
70. Clarke M, Hopewell DS. Many reports of randomised trials still don't begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Soc 2013; 24: 145-48.
71. Clark S, Horton R. Putting research into context-revisited. Lancet 2010; 376: 10-11.
72. Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 387-92.
73. Moher D. Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientifi c reporting. Can J Anaesth 2009; 56: 96-101.
74. Nosek B, Spies JR, Motyl M. Scientifi c utopia II. Restructuring Incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012; 7: 615-31.
75. Matcham J, Julious S, Pyke S, et al. Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. Pharm Stat 2011; 10: 70-73.
76. O'Kelly M, Julious SA, Pyke S, et al. Making available information from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry: some current practices. Pharm Stat 2011; 10: 60-69.
77. Royal Statistical Society. Royal Statistical Society statement in support of the guideline issued by Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry (PSI). http://www.rss.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticle.asp?chapter=15&nid=107 (accessed Dec 4, 2013).
78. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2779-87.
79. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 7 .
80. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 2.
81. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 834-40.
82. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000217.