Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24411647›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2014

Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.

Paul Glasziou, Douglas G Altman, Patrick Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Mike Clarke, Steven Julious, Susan Michie, David Moher, Elizabeth Wager

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 577 papers, 37 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
577citing papers in PubMed, 37 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

577 citing papers in PubMed, 37 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

517 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paul GlasziouCentre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: paul_glasziou@bond.edu.au.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Patrick BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, U738, Paris, France.
Mike ClarkeCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Steven JuliousMedical Statistics Group, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Susan MichieCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
David MoherOttawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Elizabeth WagerSideview, Princes Risborough, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Medical Research Council G0901474Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/J00488X/1
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Access to InformationBiomedical ResearchDocumentationGuidelines as TopicHumansInformation DisseminationPeriodicals as TopicPublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.