Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature

English version České info

David Moher and Douglas Altman outline four potential interventions that may improve the quality of peer-reviewed medical research publications.

Vyšlo v časopise: Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature. PLoS Med 12(9): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864
Kategorie: Essay
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001864

Souhrn

David Moher and Douglas Altman outline four potential interventions that may improve the quality of peer-reviewed medical research publications.

Zdroje

1. Dunn H.L. (1929) Application of statistical methods in physiology. Physiological Reviews 9:275–398.

2. Greenwood M. (1932) What is wrong with the medical curriculum? Lancet 220:1269–1270. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)24285-8

3. Schor S, Karten I. (1966) Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA 195:1123–8. 5952081

4. Altman DG. (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308:283–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283 8124111

5. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. (2008) What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 336:1472–4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47 18583680

6. Vähänikkilä H1, Tjäderhane L, Nieminen P. (2014) The statistical reporting quality of articles published in 2010 in five dental journals. Acta Odontol Scand 6:1–5.

7. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, et al. (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3:e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 18769481

8. Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. (2012) Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med 156(5):340–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00005 22393129

9. Mallett S, Timmer A, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. (2010) Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines. Br J Cancer 102:173–180. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605462 19997101

10. Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E. (2010) Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer. Ann Epidemiol 20:67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.007 20006277

11. Nature Special Series: Challenges in irreproducible research. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/reproducibility/ Last Accessed: Nov 3, 2014.

12. Editorial. Journals unite for reproducibility. Nature 2014;515:7 doi: 10.1038/515007a

13. Collins FS, Tabak LA. (2014) Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505(7485):612–3 doi: 10.1038/505612a 24482835

14. Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ 2014;349:g6870. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6870 25491195

15. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):MR000005 17443628

16. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, et al. (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383:267–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X 24411647

17. Simera I, Altman DG. (2009) Editorial: Writing a research article that is "fit for purpose": EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Ann Intern Med 151(4):JC2-2, JC2-3. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-02002

18. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–64. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651 20501928

19. Kleinert S, Horton R. How should medical science change? Lancet 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):197–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62678-1

20. Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011 Nov 22;343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783 22108262

21. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):55–63 doi: 10.7326/M14-0697 25560714

22. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246

23. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clincial trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586 23303884

24. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E. (2012) Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy Jan;17(1):1–2. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 22294719

25. Tenaerts P, Madre L, Archdeacon P, Califf RM. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative: innovation through collaboration. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014 Nov;13(11):797–8. doi: 10.1038/nrd4442 25359366

26. Moher D. (2014) Along with the privilege of authorship come important responsibilities. BMC Med 12(1):214. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0214-2 25344218

27. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3 17443635

28. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, et al. (2014) Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 349:g4145 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4145 24986891

29. Smith R. Medical journals: “a colossal problem of quality” http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/09/24/richard-smith-medical-journals-a-colossal-problem-of-quality/#respond Last Accessed Nov 3 2014.

30. Hirst A, Altman DG. (2012) Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals. PLoS ONE 7(4): e35621. 10.1371 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621 22558178

31. Patel J. (2014) Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 12:128. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z 25285376

32. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, et al. (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912):101–4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 24411643

33. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html Last accessed: Nov 3, 2014.

34. National Institutes of Health. Proposed Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. http://www.nih.gov/about/reporting-preclinical-research.htm Last Accessed: Nov 24, 2014.