Suppr超能文献

提高英国的医学研究水平。

Improving medical research in the United Kingdom.

机构信息

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

The DataLab and Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, 2nd floor, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter,Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

出版信息

BMC Res Notes. 2022 May 13;15(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06050-y.

Abstract

Poor quality medical research causes serious harms by misleading healthcare professionals and policymakers, decreasing trust in science and medicine, and wasting public funds. Here we outline underlying problems including insufficient transparency, dysfunctional incentives, and reporting biases. We make the following recommendations to address these problems: Journals and funders should ensure authors fulfil their obligation to share detailed study protocols, analytical code, and (as far as possible) research data. Funders and journals should incentivise uptake of registered reports and establish funding pathways which integrate evaluation of funding proposals with initial peer review of registered reports. A mandatory national register of interests for all those who are involved in medical research in the UK should be established, with an expectation that individuals maintain the accuracy of their declarations and regularly update them. Funders and institutions should stop using metrics such as citations and journal's impact factor to assess research and researchers and instead evaluate based on quality, reproducibility, and societal value. Employers and non-academic training programmes for health professionals (clinicians hired for patient care, not to do research) should not select based on number of research publications. Promotions based on publication should be restricted to those hired to do research.

摘要

低质量的医学研究通过误导医疗保健专业人员和政策制定者、降低对科学和医学的信任以及浪费公共资金而造成严重危害。在这里,我们概述了一些潜在问题,包括透明度不足、激励机制失调和报告偏差。我们提出以下建议来解决这些问题:期刊和资助者应确保作者履行其分享详细研究方案、分析代码和(尽可能)研究数据的义务。资助者和期刊应鼓励采用已注册报告,并建立资助途径,将对资助提案的评估与对已注册报告的初步同行评审相结合。应在英国为所有参与医学研究的人员建立一个强制性的全国利益登记册,并期望个人保持申报的准确性并定期更新。资助者和机构应停止使用引文和期刊影响因子等指标来评估研究和研究人员,而应根据质量、可重复性和社会价值进行评估。雇主和非学术性卫生专业人员培训计划(为患者护理而不是研究雇佣的临床医生)不应根据研究出版物的数量进行选择。基于出版物的晋升应仅限于那些被雇用来做研究的人。

相似文献

1
Improving medical research in the United Kingdom.
BMC Res Notes. 2022 May 13;15(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06050-y.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Transparency of research practices in cardiovascular literature.
Elife. 2025 Mar 26;14:e81051. doi: 10.7554/eLife.81051.
5
Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal's Impact Factor.
World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Nov 21;28(43):6168-6202. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i43.6168.
8
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 4;4(4):MR000038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies.
BMC Res Notes. 2023 May 3;16(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13104-023-06321-2.

本文引用的文献

1
Learning from the report of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review: "first do no harm".
Scott Med J. 2022 Feb;67(1):2-6. doi: 10.1177/00369330211058467. Epub 2022 Jan 7.
2
Open science failed to penetrate academic hiring practices: a cross-sectional study.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Apr;144:136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.003. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
3
Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model.
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Aug;5(8):990-997. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
4
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018. Epub 2021 May 30.
5
Doctors' duty to declare their interests should be enforced, says GMC.
BMJ. 2021 May 24;373:n1329. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1329.
6
Briefing: Why do we need a mandatory register of doctors' interests?
BMJ. 2021 May 20;373:n1280. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1280.
7
A manifesto for reproducible science.
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

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