Towards evidence based research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14306/572Keywords:
Research, Biomedical research, Evidence-Based Research, Primary Research, Secondary Research, Meta-analysis, Systematic ReviewsAbstract
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, Jamtvedt G, Nortvedt MW, Christensen R, Chalmers I. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5440
Publication date of the original article: October 21, 2016
RIGHTS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM RESPONSIBILITIES
Translated with permission from BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, Jamtvedt G, Nortvedt MW, Christensen R, Chalmers I. Towards Evidence Based Research, BMJ 2016;355 :i5440 © 2016 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it.
BMJ takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the translation from the published English original and is not liable for any errors which may occur. No responsibility is assumed, and responsibility is hereby disclaimed, by BMJ for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of product liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of methods, products, instructions or ideas presented in the original content.
KEY MESSAGES
Embarking on research without reviewing systematically what is already known, particularly when the research involves people or animals, is unethical, unscientific, and wasteful
A systematic review of relevant evidence can establish whether the proposed research is truly needed
Some research funders now require applicants to refer to a systematic review of existing research
Research waste can also be reduced by efficient production, updating, and dissemination of systematic reviews
References
(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.
This journal 