Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?

The aim of medical research is to advance scientific knowledge and hence--directly or indirectly--lead to improvements in the treatment and prevention of disease. Each research project should continue systematically from previous research and feed into future research. Each project should contribute beneficially to a slowly evolving body of research. A study should not mislead; otherwise it could adversely affect clinical practice and future research. In 1994 I observed that research papers commonly contain methodological errors, report results selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions. Here I revisit the topic and suggest how journal editors can help.

[1]  P. D. Oldham,et al.  A note on the analysis of repeated measurements of the same subjects. , 1962, Journal of chronic diseases.

[2]  J O Westgard,et al.  Use and interpretation of common statistical tests in method-comparison studies. , 1973, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  K J Rothman,et al.  Epidemiologic methods in clinical trials , 1977, Cancer.

[4]  Mark J. Young.  Interpreting the Medical Literature: A Clinician's Guide , 1983 .

[5]  D G Altman,et al.  Autumn Books: Caveat doctor: a grim tale of medical statistics textbooks , 1987, British medical journal.

[6]  R. Fletcher,et al.  The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. , 1990, JAMA.

[7]  A Donner,et al.  A methodological review of non-therapeutic intervention trials employing cluster randomization, 1979-1989. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.

[8]  Robert H. Fletcher,et al.  Anonymity of reviewers , 1994 .

[9]  D G Altman,et al.  The scandal of poor medical research , 1994, BMJ.

[10]  Andrew M. Odlyzko,et al.  Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholary Journals , 1996, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[11]  S. Mcguigan.  The use of Statistics in the British Journal of Psychiatry , 1995, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[12]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Implementing peer review on the net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals , 1996 .

[13]  G. E. Welch,et al.  Review of statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  G Lewis,et al.  Putting trials on trial--the costs and consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology. , 1997, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[15]  Richard Horton,et al.  Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews , 1997, The Lancet.

[16]  S. Satya‐Murti.  Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 1997 .

[17]  D. Rennie,et al.  Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.

[18]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[19]  D G Altman,et al.  Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: caveat lector? , 1998, Journal of general internal medicine.

[20]  D. Rennie.  Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. , 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[21]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[22]  N. Black,et al.  Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  R Smith,et al.  Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.

[24]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. , 1999, JAMA.

[25]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing , 1999, The Lancet.

[26]  David Moher,et al.  Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology , 2000 .

[27]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[28]  C. Grady,et al.  What makes clinical research ethical? , 2000, JAMA.

[29]  E Marubini,et al.  Content and quality of currently published phase II cancer trials. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  Paul Ginsparg,et al.  Creating a global knowledge network , 2000 .

[31]  G. Wilkinson,et al.  Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial , 2000, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[32]  Fatigue and psychological distress. Statistics are improbable. , 2000, BMJ.

[33]  Evidence produced in evidence based medicine needs to be relevant , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  W. Vach,et al.  On the misuses of artificial neural networks for prognostic and diagnostic classification in oncology. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[35]  D. Sackett.  Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM: 2nd ed , 2000 .

[36]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. , 2001, BMJ.

[37]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography , 2001, The Lancet.

[38]  Debbie A Lawlor,et al.  The effectiveness of exercise as an intervention in the management of depression: systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[39]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[40]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[42]  Richard Smith.  The BMJ: moving on , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[43]  Trisha Gura.  Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked , 2002, Nature.

[44]  Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. New policy is unlikely to give investigators more control over studies. , 2002, BMJ.

[45]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. , 2002, JAMA.

[46]  S. Goodman,et al.  How statistical expertise is used in medical research. , 2002, JAMA.

[47]  Mark V. Williams,et al.  Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice , 2002, ACP Journal Club.