|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The BMJ (partial view)
Whether
or not today’s medical researchers, like Isaac Newton, see themselves
as “standing on the shoulders of giants,” they might still be expected
to build systematically on previous research when planning new studies.
Even though this issue was highlighted as early as 2005,1 2
numerous studies indicate that researchers do not use a systematic
methodology to identify and refer to earlier research when justifying,
designing, or discussing new research.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 This is true, even in high quality clinical studies published in the most prestigious medical journals.4 5 8 12 Rather, medical researchers select studies to cite based primarily on preferences and strategic considerations.13 14 15 16 17 18
The term “evidence based research” was coined in 2009 to indicate the
approach that is needed to reduce this practice, which is an important
source of research waste19 and risks unnecessary harm for patients and study participants.
In
view of the easy access to both electronic research databases and high
quality systematic reviews—spearheaded by groups such as the Cochrane
Collaboration, and numerous evidence synthesis centres worldwide—there
is little excuse for researchers failing to refer to current systematic
assessments of previous research. Nevertheless, authors seem to get away
with being very selective,13 14 preferentially citing studies with results that support the intervention they are evaluating.15 16 17 18
Some research funders have already taken action. For example, the
National Institute for Health Research in England now requires that
applicants for primary research funding justify any proposed research by
referencing a current systematic review of relevant existing research
to show that they have taken account of the …
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.