Literature DB >> 24411647

Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.

Paul Glasziou1, Douglas G Altman2, Patrick Bossuyt3, Isabelle Boutron4, Mike Clarke5, Steven Julious6, Susan Michie7, David Moher8, Elizabeth Wager9.   

Abstract

Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24411647     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  367 in total

1.  Routinely collected data and comparative effectiveness evidence: promises and limitations.

Authors:  Lars G Hemkens; Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Beyond the impact factor?

Authors:  Seena Fazel; Jelle Lamsma
Journal:  Evid Based Ment Health       Date:  2015-04-14

3.  The use of systematic reviews and reporting guidelines to advance the implementation of the 3Rs.

Authors:  Marc T Avey; Nicole Fenwick; Gilly Griffin
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Otology Jubilee: 150 years of the Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde "Where do we come from?--Where are we?--Where are we going?".

Authors:  Stefan K Plontke
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 2.503

5. 

Authors:  Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Jean-Marie Januel; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Reduce, reuse, recycle: good stewardship of research data.

Authors:  Marcel Dijkers
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 2.772

7.  Envisioning data sharing for the biocomputing community.

Authors:  Enrico Riccardi; Sergio Pantano; Raffaello Potestio
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2019-04-19       Impact factor: 3.906

8.  Knowledge Extraction and Prediction from Behavior Science Randomized Controlled Trials: A Case Study in Smoking Cessation.

Authors:  Francesca Bonin; Martin Gleize; Yufang Hou; Debasis Ganguly; Ailbhe N Finnerty; Charles Jochim; Alessandra Pascale; Pierpaolo Tommasi; Pol Mac Aonghusa; Susan Michie
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2021-01-25

Review 9.  The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.

Authors:  Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Heather Bagley; Karen L Barnes; Jane M Blazeby; Sara T Brookes; Mike Clarke; Elizabeth Gargon; Sarah Gorst; Nicola Harman; Jamie J Kirkham; Angus McNair; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Jochen Schmitt; Caroline B Terwee; Bridget Young
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Animal Bleomycin Pulmonary Fibrosis Models: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nadim Srour; Bernard Thébaud
Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 6.940

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.