Kazan medical journalKazan medical journal0368-48142587-9359Eco-Vector1630810.17816/KMJ2019-733EditorialTowards evidence based researchLundHanshlund@health.sdu.dkBrunnhuberKlarahlund@health.sdu.dkJuhlCarstenhlund@health.sdu.dkRobinsonKarenhlund@health.sdu.dkLeenaarMarlieshlund@health.sdu.dkDorchBertil Fhlund@health.sdu.dkJamtvedtGrohlund@health.sdu.dkNortvedtMonica Whlund@health.sdu.dkChristensenRobin<p><span class="Emphasis">Copenhagen, Denmark</span></p>hlund@health.sdu.dkChalmersIainhlund@health.sdu.dkSEARCH Research Group, Department of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern DenmarkCentre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University CollegeDepartment of Rehabilitation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and GentofteJohns Hopkins UniversitySYRCLE, Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Medical CenterUniversity Library of Southern Denmark, University of Southern DenmarkDepartment for Evidence Synthesis, Norwegian Knowledge Center for the Health ServicesJames Lind Initiative1410201910057337390110201901102019Copyright © 2019, Lund H., Brunnhuber K., Juhl C., Robinson K., Leenaar M., Dorch B.F., Jamtvedt G., Nortvedt M.W., Christensen R., Chalmers I.2019[Young C., Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005; 366: 107–108. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8. PMID: 16005318.][Chalmers I. Academia’s failure to support systematic reviews. Lancet. 2005; 365: 469. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70260-9. PMID: 15705448.][Robinson K.A., Goodman S.N. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011; 154: 50–55. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007. PMID: 21200038.][Clarke M., Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998; 280: 280–282. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.280. PMID: 9676682.][Clarke M., Alderson P., Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2799–2801. DOI: 10.1001/jama.28721.2799. PMID: 12038916.][Cooper N.J., Jones D.R., Sutton A.J. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin. Trials. 2005; 2: 260–264. DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn090oa. PMID: 16279149.][Fergusson D., Glass K.C., Hutton B., Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin. Trials. 2005; 2: 218–229, discussion 229-32. DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn085oa. PMID: 16279145.][Clarke M., Hopewell S., Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet. 2010; 376: 20–21. DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(10)61045-8. PMID: 20609983.][Sheth U., Simunovic N., Tornetta P 3rd et al. Poor citation of prior evidence in hipfracturetrials. J. Bone. Joint Surg. Am. 2011; 93: 2079–2086. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS. J.01274. PMID: 22262379.][Habre C., Tramer M.R., Popping D.M., Elia N. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ. 2014; 348: g5219. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5219. PMID: 25161280.][Sawin V.I., Robinson K.A. Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovasculartrials is a continuing source ofwaste in research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 174–178. PMID: 26086727.][Clarke M., Hopewell S., Chalmers I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J. R. Soc. Med. 2007; 100: 187–190. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.100.4.187. PMID: 17404342.][Greenberg S.A. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis ofacitation network. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2680. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2680. PMID:19622839.][Bastiaansen J.A., de Vries Y.A., Munafo M.R. Citation distortions in the literature on the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region and amygdala activation. Biol. Psychiatry. 2015; 78: e35–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.12.007. PMID: 25866295.][Thornley C., Watkinson A., Nicholas D. et al. The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. Information Research. 2015; 20: 677.][Perino A.C., Hoang D.D., Holmes T.H. et al. Association between success rate and citation count of studies of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: possible evidence of citation bias. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes. 2014; 7: 687–692. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000912. PMID: 25205786.][Jannot A.S., Agoritsas T., Gayet-Ageron A., Perneger T.V. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 296–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015. PMID: 23347853.][Fiorentino F., Vasilakis C., Treasure T. Clinical reports of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: a citation network analysis. Br. J. Cancer. 2011; 104: 1085–1097. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606060. PMID: 21386844.][Robinson K.A. Use of prior research in the justification and interpretation of clinical trials. Johns Hopkins University, 2009.][National Institute for Health Research. Guidance notes for applicants: outline applications. NIHR, 2016.][Chalmers I. The lethal consequences of failing to make full use of all relevant evidence about the effects of medical treatments: the importance of systematic reviews. In: Rothwell P.M. ed. Treating individuals — from randomised trials to personalised medicine. Lancet. 2007; 37–58.][Lund H., Juhl C., Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016; 387: 123–124. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01354-9. PMID: 26841992.][Mahtani K.R. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2016; 109: 264–268. DOI: 10.1177/0141076816643954. PMID: 27118697.][Kleinert S., Benham L., Collingridge D. et al. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet. 2014; 384: 2176–2177. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62047-X. PMID: 25625383.][Jefferson T., Deeks J. The use of systematic reviews for editorial peer reviewing: a population approach. In: Godlee F., Jefferson T. eds. Peer review in health sciences. BMJ Books. 1999: 224–234.][Bastian H., Glasziou P., Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e1000326. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. PMID: 20877712.][Dickersin K., Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA. 2003; 290: 516–523. DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.4.516. PMID: 12876095.][Chalmers I., Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016; 387: 122–123. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01353-7. PMID: 26841991.][Macleod M.R., Michie S., Roberts I. et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014; 383: 101–104. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6. PMID: 24411643.][Ioannidis J.P., Greenland S., Hlatky M.A. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383: 166–175. DOI: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)62227-8. PMID: 24411645.][Glasziou P., Altman D.G., Bossuyt P. et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 267–276. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13) 62228-X. PMID: 24411647.][Chan A.W., Song F., Vickers A. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 257–266. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5. PMID: 24411650.][Al-Shahi Salman R., Beller E., Kagan J. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014; 383: 176–185. DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(13)62297-7. PMID: 24411646.][Chalmers I., Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374: 86–89. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. PMID: 19525005.][Starr M., Chalmers I., Clarke M., Oxman A.D. The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care. 2009; 25 (Suppl. 1): 182–195. DOI: 10.1017/S026646230909062X. PMID: 19534840.][Elliott J.H., Turner T., Clavisi O. et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014; 11: e1001603. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pmed.1001603. PMID: 24558353.][Vandvik P.O., Brignardello-Petersen R., Guyatt G.H. Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews? BMC Med. 2016; 14: 59. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0596-4. PMID: 27025849.][Clarke M., Brice A., Chalmers I. Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e102670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0102670. PMID: 25068257.][Siebert U., Rochau U., Claxton K. When is enough evidence enough? — Using systematic decision analysis and value-of-information analysis to determine the need for further evidence. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundhwes 2013; 107: 575–584. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.020. PMID: 24315327.][Garner P., Hopewell S., Chandler J. et al. Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016; 354: i3507. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i3507. PMID: 27443385.][Wetterslev J., Thorlund K., Brok J., Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 64–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013. PMID: 18083463.][Booth A., Clarke M., Dooley G. et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2012; 1: 2. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2. PMID: 22587842.]