How do we create, and improve, the evidence base?

British Dental Journal

Volumn 220, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 651-655

  Innes, N P T ^a   Schwendicke, F ^b   Lamont, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL BINDING; DISTILLATION; HUMAN; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESPONSIBILITY; SCIENTIST; SYNTHESIS; EVIDENCE BASED DENTISTRY;

EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY;

EID: 84975769741     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Sackett D.L, Rosenberg W M.C, Gray J A.M, Haynes R.B, Richardson W.S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72.
2. DECIDE GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Online information available at http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/etd-evidence-deci-sion-framework (accessed 18 April 2016
3. Chalmers I, Bracken M.B, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 156-165.
4. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 176-185.
5. Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 257-266.
6. Ioannidis J P.A, Greenland S, Hlatky M A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 166-175.
7. Røttingen J.A, Regmi S, Eide M, et al. Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory? The Lancet. 2013; 382: 1286-1307.
8. Chalmers, I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89.
9. Glasziou P, Altman D.G, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of bio-medical research. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 267-276.
10. Fleming P.S, Lynch C.D, Pandis N. Randomized controlled trials in dentistry: Common pitfalls and how to avoid them. J Dent. 2014; 42: 908-914.
11. Olympics cycling: Marginal gains underpin Team GB dominance. Online information available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/19174302 (accessed December 2015
12. Pawson R. In Metzler K (ed) The science of evalua-Tion; A realist manifesto. London: SAGE, 2013.
13. Nurse P. Ensuring a successful UK research endeavour A Review of the UK Research Councils. BIS/15/625. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 2014. Online information available at https: //www.gov.uk/government/collections/nurse-review-of-research-councils (accessed December 2015
14. TRIAL FORGE. Online information available at http://www.trialforge.org/.(accessed December 2015
15. Macleod M.R, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet. 2014; 383: 101-104.
16. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 12: 101-103.
17. Jones A.P, Conroy E, Williamson P.R, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomized trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Method. 2013; 13: 50.
18. Sutton A.J, Cooper N.J, Jones DR. Evidence syn-Thesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Method. 2009; 9: 29.
19. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helskini. Online information available at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/.(accessed December 2015
20. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Online information available at http://www.icmje.org/.(accessed December 2015
21. Clinical Trials.gov Trial Registration Site. Online information available at https: //clinicaltrials.gov/.(accessed December 2015
22. Smail-Faugeron V, Fron-Chabouis H, Durieux P. Clinical trial registration in oral health journals. J Dent Res. 2015; 94: 8s-13s.
23. All Trials. Online information available at http://www.alltrials.net/.(accessed December 2015
24. CONSORT, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Online information available at http://www.consort-statement.org/.(accessed December 2015
25. Lamont T, Schwendicke F, Innes N Why we need a core outcome set for trials of interventions for prevention and management of caries Evid Based Dent. 2015; 16: 66-68.
26. COMET Initiative, Core outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials. Online information available at http://www.comet-initiative.org/.(accessed December 2015
27. COSMIN, COnsesus-based Standards for the selection of Measurement INstruments. Online information available at http://www.cosmin.nl/.(accessed December 2015
28. Dwan K, Altman D, Arnaiz J, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One. 2008; 3: e3081.
29. Boutron I, Altman D.G, Hopewell S, Vera-Badi-llo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 4120-4126.
30. EQUATOR Network, Enhancing QUAlity and Trans-parency Of health Research, which is a resource aimed at supporting clear, accurate reports for all types of health research studies. Online informa-Tion available at http://www.equator-network.org/.(accessed December 2015
31. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc O.A, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: Mr000033. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
32. Cochrane Collaboration. Online information available at http://www.cochrane.org/.(accessed December 2015
33. PROSPERO register. Online information available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.(accessed December 2015
34. PRISMA (Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement. Online information available at http://www.prisma-state-ment.org/.(accessed December 2015
35. Atkins D, Best D, Briss P.A, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490-94.
36. GRADE collaboration. Online information available at www.gradeworkinggroup.org/.(accessed Decem-ber 2015
37. The AGREE II (Appraisal of guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument. Online information available at http://www.agreetrust.org/about-Theagree-enterprise/introductiontoagree-ii/.(accessed December 2015
38. DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communica-Tion Strategies to Support informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) collaboration. Online information available at http://www.decide-collab-oration.eu/.(accessed December 2015
39. International Committee of Medical Journal Edi-Tors. Online information available at http://www.icmje.org (accessed December 2015
40. The World Association of Medical Editors. Online information available at http://www.wame.org/.(accessed December 2015
41. The Council of Science Editors. Online information available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/.(accessed December 2015
42. The Committee on Publication Ethics. Online information available at http://publicationethics.org/.(accessed December 2015
43. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Making sense of evidence. Online information available at http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-international/c1zsi (accessed December 2015
44. World Association for Medical Editors (WAME), Resource for Evaluation of Research Articles. Online information available at http://www.wame.org/about/resource-for-evaluation-of-research-Ar-Ticles (accessed December 2015
45. Publishing Research Consortium. Online informa-Tion available at http://publishingresearchconsor-Tium.com/.(accessed December 2015
46. British Medical Journal. Training materials. Online information available at http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials (accessed December 2015