Towards evidence based research

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

About the authors

Hans Lund

SEARCH Research Group, Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark; Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College

Author for correspondence.
Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Norway, 55 DK 5230 Odense, Denmark; Bergen, Norway

Klara Brunnhuber

Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Norway, Bergen, Norway

Carsten Juhl

SEARCH Research Group, Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark; Department of Rehabilitation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Denmark, 55 DK 5230 Odense, Denmark; Copenhagen, Denmark

Karen Robinson

Johns Hopkins University

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
United States, Baltimore, MD, USA

Marlies Leenaar

SYRCLE, Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Netherlands, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Bertil F Dorch

University Library of Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Gro Jamtvedt

Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College; Department for Evidence Synthesis, Norwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Norway, Bergen, Norway; Oslo, Norway

Monica W Nortvedt

Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
Norway, Bergen, Norway

Robin Christensen

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk

Copenhagen, Denmark

Denmark, Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital

Iain Chalmers

James Lind Initiative

Email: hlund@health.sdu.dk
United Kingdom, Oxford, UK

References

  1. Young C., Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005; 366: 107–108. 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 K.A., Goodman S.N. A systematic exa­mination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011; 154: 50–55. 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: 280–282. 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: 2799–2801. doi: 10.1001/jama.28721.2799. PMID: 12038916.
  6. Cooper N.J., Jones D.R., Sutton A.J. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin. Trials. 2005; 2: 260–264. doi: 10.1191/1740774505cn090oa. PMID: 16279149.
  7. Fergusson D., Glass K.C., Hutton B., Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin. Trials. 2005; 2: 218–229, 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: 20–21. DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(10)61045-8. PMID: 20609983.
  9. Sheth U., Simunovic N., Tornetta P 3rd et al. Poor citation of prior evidence in hipfracturetrials. J. Bone. Joint Surg. Am. 2011; 93: 2079–2086. doi: 10.2106/JBJS. J.01274. PMID: 22262379.
  10. Habre C., Tramer M.R., Popping D.M., 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 V.I., Robinson K.A. Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovasculartrials is a continuing source ofwaste in research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 174–178. 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: 187–190. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.100.4.187. PMID: 17404342.
  13. Greenberg S.A. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis ofacitation network. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2680. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2680. PMID: 19622839.
  14. Bastiaansen J.A., de Vries Y.A., Munafo M.R. Citation distortions in the literature on the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region and amygdala activation. Biol. Psychiatry. 2015; 78: e35–36. 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 A.C., Hoang D.D., Holmes T.H. 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: 687–692. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000912. PMID: 25205786.
  17. Jannot A.S., Agoritsas T., Gayet-Ageron A., Perne­ger T.V. 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: 1085–1097. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606060. PMID: 21386844.
  19. Robinson K.A. 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 P.M. 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: 123–124. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01354-9. PMID: 26841992.
  23. Mahtani K.R. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systema­tic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2016; 109: 264–268. doi: 10.1177/0141076816643954. PMID: 27118697.
  24. Kleinert S., Benham L., Collingridge D. et al. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet. 2014; 384: 2176–2177. 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: 224–234.
  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: 516–523. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.4.516. PMID: 12876095.
  28. Chalmers I., Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016; 387: 122–123. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01353-7. PMID: 26841991.
  29. Macleod M.R., Michie S., Roberts I. et al. Biome­dical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014; 383: 101–104. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6. PMID: 24411643.
  30. Ioannidis J.P., Greenland S., Hlatky M.A. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383: 166–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)62227-8. PMID: 24411645.
  31. Glasziou P., Altman D.G., Bossuyt P. et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13) 62228-X. PMID: 24411647.
  32. Chan A.W., Song F., Vickers A. et al. Increa­sing va­lue and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 257–266. 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: 176–185. 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: 86–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. PMID: 19525005.
  35. Starr M., Chalmers I., Clarke M., Oxman A.D. The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care. 2009; 25 (Suppl. 1): 182–195. doi: 10.1017/S026646230909062X. PMID: 19534840.
  36. Elliott J.H., 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 P.O., Brignardello-Petersen R., Guyatt G.H. 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: 575–584. 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.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

© 2019 Lund H., Brunnhuber K., Juhl C., Robinson K., Leenaar M., Dorch B.F., Jamtvedt G., Nortvedt M.W., Christensen R., Chalmers I.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).