Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30766728›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019

The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018.

Iain Chalmers, Patricia Atkinson, Douglas Badenoch, Paul Glasziou, Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren, Andy Oxman, Mike Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9024-5444
Patricia AtkinsonJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG UK.
Douglas BadenochMinervation Ltd, The Wheelhouse, First Floor, Angel Court, 81 St Clements Street Oxford, England, OX4 1AW UK.
Paul Glasziou3Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD 4229 Australia.
Astrid Austvoll-DahlgrenRegional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Gullhaugveien 1-3, 0484 Oslo, Norway.
Andy Oxman5Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Box 4404, Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, PO Norway.
Mike Clarke6Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Queens University Belfast, Royal Hospitals, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe James Lind Initiative (JLI) was a work programme inaugurated by Iain Chalmers and Patricia Atkinson to press for better research for better health care. It ran between 2003 and 2018, when Iain Chalmers retired. During the 15 years of its existence, the JLI developed three strands of work in collaboration with the authors of this paper, and with others. WORK THEMES: The first work strand involved developing a process for use by patients, carers and clinicians to identify shared priorities for research - the James Lind Alliance. The second strand was a series of articles, meetings, prizes and other developments to raise awareness of the massive amounts of avoidable waste in research, and of ways of reducing it. The third strand involved using a variety of approaches to promote better public and professional understanding of the importance of research in clinical practice and public health. JLI work on the first two themes has been addressed in previously published reports. This paper summarises JLI involvement during the 15 years of its existence in giving talks, convening workshops, writing books, and creating websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims.

conclusionDuring its 15-year life, the James Lind Initiative worked collaboratively with others to create free teaching and learning resources to help children and adults learn how to recognise untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. These resources have been translated in more than twenty languages, but much more could be done to support their uptake and wider use.

Indexed as

Claim evaluation toolsCritical thinking and appraisal resource library (CARL)Evaluation of teaching/learningGenerationRGET-IT glossaryInformed health choices projectsJames Lind AllianceJames Lind libraryKey conceptsTeachers of EBHCTesting treatmentsTesting treatments interactiveTesting treatments international

Identifiers

PMID30766728
PMCPMC6360692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.