Suppr超能文献

方法重于指标:当前的科学标准对患者和社会不利。

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.

机构信息

Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands; EPI-Centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; EPI-Centre, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018. Epub 2021 May 30.

Abstract

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

摘要

Covid-19 研究清楚地表明,正如 Altman 在 1994 年所谴责的那样,医学研究中的丑闻今天依然存在。尽管长期以来一直受到批评,但医学研究的整体质量仍然很差。这些问题众所周知,但研究界未能妥善解决它们。我们认为,大多数问题源于一个潜在的悖论:尽管方法学无疑是高质量和负责任研究的支柱,但科学界始终低估了方法学。重点仍然更多地放在目的地(研究主张和指标)上,而不是放在旅程上。尽管如此,研究应该更多地为社会服务,而不是为参与者的声誉服务。虽然我们注意到许多举措正在建立,以改善研究周期的各个组成部分,但这些举措过于脱节。整个系统是庞大的,适应缓慢。我们断言,期刊、大学、资助者和政府需要采取自上而下的行动来打破这种循环,将方法学放在首位。这些行动应包括广泛采用注册报告、在创新、增量和方法学研究项目之间平衡研究资金、充分认识和消除同行评审的神秘感、改进报告的方法学审查、遵守报告准则,以及投资于方法学教育和研究。目前,科学事业正在严重损害患者和社会的利益。

相似文献

2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
10
Framework for advancing rigorous research.推进严谨研究的框架。
Elife. 2020 Mar 4;9:e55915. doi: 10.7554/eLife.55915.

引用本文的文献

1
Design aspects for prognostic factor studies.预后因素研究的设计方面。
BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 31;15(8):e095065. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095065.
4
Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.耳鼻喉科学出版物中的撤稿情况。
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025 May 1;151(5):458-465. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2025.0018.
10
Continuing to Advance Epidemiology.持续推进流行病学发展。
Front Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 12;1:782374. doi: 10.3389/fepid.2021.782374. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Science After Covid-19: Faster, Better, Stronger?新冠疫情后的科学:更快、更好、更强?
Signif (Oxf). 2020 Jul 29;17(4):8-9. doi: 10.1111/1740-9713.01415. eCollection 2020 Aug.
5
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.《评估研究人员的香港原则:促进研究诚信》
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.
8
Waste in covid-19 research.新冠疫情研究中的浪费现象。
BMJ. 2020 May 12;369:m1847. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1847.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验