The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change
Open Access
- 2 June 2015
- Vol. 350 (jun02 17), h2463
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2463
Abstract
The medical literature is biased and inundated with poor quality trials. Ian Roberts and colleagues explain how these problems affect systematic reviews and how they might be overcome Information on the effectiveness and safety of healthcare should be valid, precise, up to date, clear, and freely available. Currently none of these criteria are fully satisfied, and Cochrane systematic reviews are not the solution. In this article we explain why the knowledge system for healthcare is unfit for purpose and suggest how it should change. Because the medical literature contains a biased sample of trials, systematic reviews that are based on it are also biased.1 Despite decades of exhortation about trial publication, about half of all trials are unpublished, and even the most diligent efforts to synthesise the results from all (or an unbiased sample of) relevant trials are in vain.1 2 Even when trials are identified selective outcome reporting limits their validity.3 4 The literature is awash with low quality, underpowered, single centre trials and the trend is upwards. As Altman recognised over 20 years ago “much poor research arises because researchers feel compelled for career reasons to carry out research that they are ill equipped to perform, and nobody stops them.”5 The systematic review movement is renowned for its obsessive zeal to find every published trial, irrespective of size or quality. These efforts have increased the accessibility of many trials that should never have been conducted. Their citation in reviews perpetuates the problem by contributing to the impact factor of the journals that published them. In the United Kingdom, the funding provided to Cochrane review groups is proportional to the number of trials included in reviews, creating a financial incentive to find and include every trial regardless of its quality. Most journal editors and systematic …Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysisThe Lancet, 2014
- Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: How common are false positive and false negative results?International Journal of Cardiology, 2013
- Association of Hydroxyethyl Starch Administration With Mortality and Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Volume ResuscitationJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2013
- The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation StudyPLOS ONE, 2011
- A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy and motivational interviewing for people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus with persistent sub-optimal glycaemic control: A Diabetes and Psychological Therapies (ADaPT) study.Health Technology Assessment, 2010
- The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviewsBMJ, 2010
- Doubts over head injury studiesBMJ, 2007
- Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: Utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysisControlled Clinical Trials, 1997
- The scandal of poor medical researchBMJ, 1994
- Underreporting Research Is Scientific MisconductPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1990