Hacia la investigación basada en la evidencia

María Elena Marqués, Aitor Herrero, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez, Andrea Cervera, Kristian Buhring, Eliud Aguilar-Barrera, Samuel Durán-Agüero

Resumen


ARTÍCULO ORIGINAL

Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, Jamtvedt G, Nortvedt MW, Christensen R, Chalmers I. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5440

Fecha de publicación del artículo original: 21 de octubre de 2016

DERECHOS Y EXENCIÓN DE RESPONSABILIDADES

Traducido con el permiso de BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, Jamtvedt G, Nortvedt MW, Christensen R, Chalmers I. Towards Evidence Based Research, BMJ 2016;355 :i5440 © 2016 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido

BMJ no se hace responsable de la exactitud de la traducción publicada ni de los errores que pueda contener. No se asume responsabilidad alguna por parte de BMJ por cualquier lesión o daño a personas o propiedad por responsabilidad del producto, negligencia o de otra forma, ni de cualquier uso u operación de métodos, productos, instrucciones o ideas presentadas en el contenido original.

MENSAJES CLAVE

Aventurarse en investigación sin revisar de manera sistemática lo ya conocido, especialmente cuando la investigación implica personas o animales, no es ético, carece de rigor científico y es un desperdicio.

Una revisión sistemática de pruebas imparciales (evidencias) relevantes puede determinar si la investigación propuesta es realmente necesaria.

Algunos organismos de financiación ahora requieren que los solicitantes hagan referencia a revisiones sistemáticas de investigaciones existentes.

El desperdicio en investigación también se puede reducir mediante la producción, actualización y difusión eficientes de revisiones sistemáticas.


Palabras clave


Investigación; Investigación biomédica; Investigación Basada en la Evidencia; Investigación Primaria; Investigación Secundaria; Metaanálisis; Revisiones Sistemáticas

Texto completo:

PDF (versión post-print) PDF

Referencias


(1) Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107-8. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8 PMID:16005318.

(2) Chalmers I. Academia’s failure to support systematic reviews. Lancet. 2005;365:469. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70260-9 PMID:15705448.

(3) Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:50-5. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007 PMID:21200038.

(4) Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA. 1998;280:280-2. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.280 PMID:9676682.

(5) Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2799-801. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2799 PMID:12038916.

(6) Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials. 2005;2:260-4. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn090oa PMID:16279149.

(7) Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials. 2005;2:218-29, discussion 229-32. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn085oa PMID:16279145.

(8) Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet. 2010;376:20-1. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61045-8 PMID:20609983.

(9) Sheth U, Simunovic N, Tornetta P 3rd, , Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. Poor citation of prior evidence in hip fracture trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:2079-86. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01274 PMID:22262379.

(10) Habre C, Tramèr MR, Pöpping DM, 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.

(11) Sawin VI, Robinson KA. Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovascular trials is a continuing source of waste in research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:174-8. PMID:26086727.

(12) 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;100:187-90. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.4.187 PMID:17404342.

(13) Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ. 2009;339:b2680. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680 PMID:19622839.

(14) Bastiaansen JA, de Vries YA, Munafò MR. Citation distortions in the literature on the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region and amygdala activation. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;78:e35-6. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.12.007 PMID:25866295.

(15) 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.

(16) Perino AC, Hoang DD, Holmes TH, 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;7:687-92. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000912 PMID:25205786.

(17) Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. 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.

(18) Fiorentino F, Vasilakis C, Treasure T. Clinical reports of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: a citation network analysis. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1085-97. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606060 PMID:21386844.

(19) Robinson KA. Use of prior research in the justification and interpretation of clinical trials. Johns Hopkins University, 2009.

(20) National Institute for Health Research. Guidance notes for applicants: outline applications. NIHR, 2016.

(21) 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 PM, ed. Treating individuals—from randomised trials to personalised medicine. Lancet. 2007: 37-58.

(22) Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387:123-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01354-9 PMID:26841992.

(23) Mahtani KR. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2016;109:264-8. doi:10.1177/0141076816643954 PMID:27118697.

(24) Kleinert S, Benham L, Collingridge D, Summerskill W, Horton R. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet. 2014;384:2176-7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62047-X PMID:25625383.

(25) 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: 224-34.

(26) 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.

(27) Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA. 2003;290:516-23. doi:10.1001/jama.290.4.516 PMID:12876095.

(28) Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387:122-3. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01353-7 PMID:26841991.

(29) Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 PMID:24411643.

(30) Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383:166-75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 PMID:24411645.

(31) Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267-76. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X PMID:24411647.

(32) Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257-66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5 PMID:24411650.

(33) Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383:176-85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7 PMID:24411646.

(34) Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86-9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 PMID:19525005.

(35) Starr M, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Oxman AD. The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):182-95. doi:10.1017/S026646230909062X PMID:19534840.

(36) Elliott JH, 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.

(37) Vandvik PO, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH. 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.

(38) 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.

(39) 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;107:575-84. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2013.10.020 PMID:24315327.

(40) 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.

(41) 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.

(42) 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.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14306/572

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Copyright (c) 2018 María Elena Marqués, Aitor Herrero, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez, Andrea Cervera, Kristian Buhring, Eliud Aguilar-Barrera, Samuel Durán-Agüero

URL de la licencia: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

  

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.

Esta revista ha conseguido la validación para ser Data Provider OAI-PMH version 2.0 de Open Archives Initiative (OAI)



ISSN (online): 2174-5145 / ISSN (print): 2173-1292

Abreviatura: Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet

DOI revista: 10.14306/renhyd

 

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/renhyd

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/renhyd_org (@renhyd_org)

 

 

Indexada en:

 

 

 

 

Cooperación entre revistas iberoamericanas de nutrición humana:

Perspectivas en Nutrición Humana

 

 

¿Quién nos visita?