Literature DB >> 26194725

What is the future of biomedical research?

Giovanni Domenico Tebala1.   

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials require hard work and financial commitment, whereas meta-analyses and systematic reviews can be relatively easy to perform and often get published in high impact journals. Many researchers might decide to devote themselves to the latter approach, resulting in a negative impact on clinical research. We have reviewed the number of indexed meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PubMed and compared it with the number of randomized controlled trials over the same period. Statistical analysis showed an exponential increase of synthetic studies with respect to randomized trials. The ratio between RCTs and synthetic studies is quickly decreasing. These results suggest that a growing number of researchers might prefer to commit themselves to synthetic studies more than be involved in more time consuming and funds demanding observational trials. If we are unable to invert this trend, in the future we will have a growing number of synthetic studies utilizing someone else's original data and fewer raw data to base our knowledge upon.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26194725     DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2015.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Hypotheses        ISSN: 0306-9877            Impact factor:   1.538


  5 in total

Review 1.  Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.

Authors:  John D Delaney; John T Holbrook; Robert K Dewar; Patrick J Laws; Alexander F Engel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 2.  Mapping the characteristics of network meta-analyses on drug therapy: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fernanda S Tonin; Laiza M Steimbach; Antonio M Mendes; Helena H Borba; Roberto Pontarolo; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making.

Authors:  Gabriel Rada; Daniel Pérez; Felipe Araya-Quintanilla; Camila Ávila; Gonzalo Bravo-Soto; Rocío Bravo-Jeria; Aldo Cánepa; Daniel Capurro; Victoria Castro-Gutiérrez; Valeria Contreras; Javiera Edwards; Jorge Faúndez; Damián Garrido; Magdalena Jiménez; Valentina Llovet; Diego Lobos; Francisco Madrid; Macarena Morel-Marambio; Antonia Mendoza; Ignacio Neumann; Luis Ortiz-Muñoz; José Peña; Marcelo Pérez; Franco Pesce; Carmen Rain; Solange Rivera; Javiera Sepúlveda; Mauricio Soto; Felipe Valverde; Juan Vásquez; Francisca Verdugo-Paiva; Camilo Vergara; Cynthia Zavala; Ricardo Zilleruelo-Ramos
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.

Authors:  Gehad Mohamed Tawfik; Hoang Thi Nam Giang; Sherief Ghozy; Ahmed M Altibi; Hend Kandil; Huu-Hoai Le; Peter Samuel Eid; Ibrahim Radwan; Omar Mohamed Makram; Tong Thi Thu Hien; Mahmoud Sherif; As-Saba Hossain; Tai Luu Lam Thang; Livia Puljak; Hosni Salem; Tarek Numair; Kazuhiko Moji; Nguyen Tien Huy
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 5.  The Emperor's New Clothes: a Critical Appraisal of Evidence-based Medicine.

Authors:  Giovanni D Tebala
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 3.738

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.