open access: BioMed Central Blog : Connecting the evidence: an “ontology” (vocabulary) for Threaded Publications (unpublished research)

Thursday Feb 02, 2012

Connecting the evidence: an “ontology” for Threaded Publications

"Unpublished research is a serious problem for evidence-based decision making in healthcare, and this was recently highlighted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and in an entire issue of the BMJ. Systematic reviews aim to present the totality of the evidence, and a problem for those preparing and maintaining these reviews is how to find unpublished studies and data. But, even when clinical trials are reported in journals and their supplements the formats and descriptions are widely heterogeneous and studies can remain difficult to discover and challenging to compare with similar trials.
Clearly connecting trial-related publications is a way to help with this problem and is a major goal of BioMed Central’s Threaded Publications initiative. To achieve its fundamental aims of connecting all digital published content relating to the evidence about a particular trial, however, Threaded Publications must go beyond a single journal or publisher.
Through our partnership with CrossRef – an organisation founded by publishers, for publishers – and engagement with editors and publishers we hope to achieve interoperability across different publishing platforms.
The desired outcome is that articles reporting the protocol or the findings of a trial published in different journals or by different publishers will be linked in a thread, which should also include the trial’s entry in a research register......."

BMJ Group blogs: Liz Wager: Do we need to rethink our approaches to research misconduct and research integrity?

"....Having failed to start a reasonable conversation about research integrity, based on major scandals, we see no point in trying to address so-called “minor” offences. But as Iain Chalmers said at the meeting, “lesser offences,” such as failing to publish research and publishing welcome results more often than disappointing results, harms many more patients than the high profile scandals (since it distorts the evidence on which guidelines and clinical practice are based). While plagiarism may be a nasty symptom of a sick system, it has probably never killed anybody while unreliable guidelines and misguided research undoubtedly have....."

Longwoods: Research How Well Protected Are Canadian Research Participants: Who Knows?

Originally Published in Nursing Leadership, 21(4) : 1–5 November 2008

MJA Insight: Research doesn’t match cancer burden

"....Professor Young suggested that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) could prioritise funding for specific cancers. “The NHMRC needs to take a more strategic view as to where they place the funds, and where they create the incentive for specific cancers,” he said.

He said this would encourage researchers to study the underrepresented cancers. “In my view, researchers go to where they can get the money and not necessarily to where the problems are, and I think this paper proves that,” he said...."
  
Dr Annette Katelaris:
"... the National Cancer Institute in the United States is planning to create a “cross-disease panel” that will establish priorities for funding and coordination of clinical trials."

Comment
	Jane McCredie: Answering the tricky question FULL STORY.
	Nick Graves: The real cost of research cuts FULL STORY.
	Dr Annette Katelaris: Matching funding to need FULL STORY.

Ovarian cancer: early detection saves lives | McGill University (Montreal) Health Centre - the Dove Project

For more information about DOVE: http://muhc.ca/royalvic/article/dove-project

Mayo Clinic - Mayo Clinic Researchers Receive $11 Million for Medical Genomics

Arresting Development: Blood Biomarker Patterns May Aid Early Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer: Scientific American

Note: in research

It's Our Time - American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)