Towards evidence based research

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 355, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Lund, Hans ^a,b   Brunnhuber, Klara ^c   Juhl, Carsten ^a,d   Robinson, Karen ^e   Leenaars, Marlies ^f   Dorch, Bertil F ^a   Jamtvedt, Gro ^b,g   Nortvedt, Monica W ^b   Christensen, Robin ^h   Chalmers, Iain ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b BERGEN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE   (Norway)

^c BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^d GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g Norwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services   (Norway)

^h FREDERIKSBERG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

ⁱ James Lind Initiative   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CURRICULUM; ENGLAND; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84992537794     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5440     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 2005;366:107-8. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8 pmid:16005318.
2. Chalmers I. Academia's failure to support systematic reviews. Lancet 2005;365:469. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70260-9 pmid:15705448.
3. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:50-5. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007 pmid:21200038.
4. Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?JAMA 1998;280:280-2. doi:10. 1001/jama.280.3.280 pmid:9676682.
5. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 2002;287:2799-801. doi:10.1001/jama.287. 21.2799 pmid:12038916.
6. Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials 2005;2:260-4. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn090oa pmid:16279149.
7. Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?Clin Trials 2005;2:218-29, discussion 229-32. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn085oa pmid:16279145.
8. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 2010;376:20-1. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61045-8 pmid:20609983.
9. Sheth U, Simunovic N, Tornetta P 3rd, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:2079-86. doi:10.2106/JBJS. J.01274 pmid:22262379.
10. Habre C, Tramèr MR, Pöpping DM, Elia N. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ 2014;348:g5219. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5219 pmid:25161280.
11. Sawin VI, Robinson KA. Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovascular trials is a continuing source of waste in research. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:174-8.pmid:26086727.
12. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J R Soc Med 2007;100:187-90. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.4.187 pmid:17404342.
13. Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 2009;339:b2680. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680 pmid:19622839.
14. Bastiaansen JA, de Vries YA, Munafò MR. Citation distortions in the literature on the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region and amygdala activation. Biol Psychiatry 2015;78:e35-6. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.12.007 pmid:25866295.
15. Thornley C, Watkinson A, Nicholas D, et al. The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. Information Research 2015;20: 677.
16. Perino AC, Hoang DD, Holmes TH, et al. Association between success rate and citation count of studies of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: possible evidence of citation bias. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014;7:687-92. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000912 pmid:25205786.
17. Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:296-301. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015 pmid:23347853.
18. Fiorentino F, Vasilakis C, Treasure T. Clinical reports of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: a citation network analysis. Br J Cancer 2011;104:1085-97. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606060 pmid:21386844.
19. Robinson KA. Use of prior research in the justification and interpretation of clinical trials. Johns Hopkins University, 2009.
20. National Institute for Health Research. Guidance notes for applicants: outline applications. NIHR, 2016.
21. Chalmers I. The lethal consequences of failing to make full use of all relevant evidence about the effects of medical treatments: the importance of systematic reviews. In: Rothwell PM, ed. Treating individuals-from randomised trials to personalised medicine. Lancet, 2007: 37-58.
22. Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet 2016;387:123-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01354-9 pmid:26841992.
23. Mahtani KR. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review. J R Soc Med 2016;109:264-8. doi:10.1177/0141076816643954 pmid: 27118697.
24. Kleinert S, Benham L, Collingridge D, Summerskill W, Horton R. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet 2014;384:2176-7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62047-X pmid: 25625383.
25. Jefferson T, Deeks J. The use of systematic reviews for editorial peer reviewing: a population approach. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. BMJ Books, 1999: 224-34.
26. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed. 1000326 pmid:20877712.
27. Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA 2003;290:516-23. doi:10.1001/jama.290.4.516 pmid:12876095.
28. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet 2016;387:122-3. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01353-7 pmid:26841991.
29. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014;383:101-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 pmid:24411643.
30. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014;383:166-75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 pmid:24411645.
31. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014;383:267-76. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13) 62228-X pmid:24411647.
32. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014;383:257-66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5 pmid:24411650.
33. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014;383:176-85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7 pmid:24411646.
34. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 pmid:19525005.
35. Starr M, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Oxman AD. The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 1):182-95. doi:10.1017/S026646230909062X pmid:19534840.
36. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.1001603 pmid:24558353.
37. Vandvik PO, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH. Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?BMC Med 2016;14:59. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0596-4 pmid:27025849.
38. Clarke M, Brice A, Chalmers I. Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS One 2014;9:e102670. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0102670 pmid:25068257.
39. Siebert U, Rochau U, Claxton K. When is enough evidence enough?-Using systematic decision analysis and value-of-information analysis to determine the need for further evidence. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2013;107:575-84. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2013. 10.020 pmid:24315327.
40. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al. Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016;354:i3507. doi:10.1136/bmj.i3507 pmid:27443385.
41. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:64-75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013 pmid:18083463.
42. 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. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 pmid:22587842.