Improving reports of research

High quality, complete reports of research are needed to provide maximum return on the public’s substantial investment in research on the effects of treatments.


JLL Essay
4.1 Improving reports of research

Produce unbiased and useful research reports

 

FILTER CLEAR FILTERS

SORT date author


FILTER RECORDS BY


Codman EA (1916)
A study in hospital efficiency. Boston: privately printed.

View

Wistar Institute (1934)
Style brief, a guide for authors in preparing manuscripts and drawings for the most effective and economical method of publishing biological research. Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press.

View

Mainland D (1938)
The treatment of clinical and laboratory data: an introduction to statistical ideas and methods for medical and dental workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

View

Daniels M (1950)
Scientific appraisement of new drugs in tuberculosis. American Review of Tuberculosis 61:751-756.

View

Daniels M (1951)
Clinical evaluation of chemotherapy in tuberculosis. British Medical Bulletin 7:320-326.

View

Mainland D (1952)
Intercurrent Events. In: Elementary Medical Statistics: the principles of quantitative medicine. London: WB Saunders Company, p 109. [Facimile copy printed and bound in India. Pranava Books. 2- LB100151138852 -301 -4 sa.]

View

Herdan G (1955)
Statistics of Therapeutic Trials. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

View

Cole JO, Ross S, Bouthilet L, Freeman H, Bennett IF, Hoffman JL, Lehmann H (1957)
Recommendations for reporting studies of psychiatric drugs. Public Health Report 72:638–645.

View

Sutherland I (1958)
Statistical aspects of clinical trials. In: Dodds C, ed. Report of a Symposium on Clinical Trials held at The Royal Society of Medicine, London, 25 April, p 53, pp 50-55.

View

Waife SO (1959)
Problems of publication. In: Waife SO, Shapiro AP (1959). The clinical evaluation of new drugs. New York: Hoeber-Harper, 213-216.

View

Knowelden J (1959)
Prophylactic trials. In: Witts LJ ed. Medical Surveys and Clinical Trials. London: Oxford University Press. pp 118-133.

View

Lasagna L, Meier P (1959)
Experimental Design and Statistical Problems. In: Waife SO, Shapiro AP, eds. The Clinical Evaluation of New Drugs. New York: Hoeber. pp 37-60.

View

Laurence DR, ed. (1959)
Quantitative Methods in Human Pharmacology and Therapeutics. London: Pergamon Press.

View

Bywaters E (1960)
Rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment and illustrative answers. In: Hill AB ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp 75-83.

View

Knowelden J (1960)
The analysis and presentation of results. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 155-159.

View

Glick BS, Margolis R (1962)
A study of the influence of experimental design on clinical outcome in drug research. American Journal of Psychiatry 118:1087-1096.

View

Glick BS (1963)
Inadequacies in the reporting of clinical drug research. Psychiatr Q 37:234-44.

View

Mahon WA, Daniel EE (1964)
A method for the assessment of reports of drug trials. Canadian Medical Association Journal 90:565-9.

View

Hill AB (1965)
The reasons for writing. BMJ 2:870.

View

Ertl N (1969)
A new way of documenting scientific data from medical publications. Karger Gazette 20:1-4.

View

Altman DG (1981)
Statistics and ethics in medical research. VIII-Improving the quality of statistics in medical journals. BMJ 282:44–47.

View

Chalmers TC, Smith JH, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A (1981)
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials 2: 31-49.

View

Hampton JR (1981)
Presentation and analysis of the results of clinical trials in cardiovascular disease BMJ 282:1371-1373.

View

Hemminki E (1981)
Quality of reports of clinical trials submitted by the drug industry to the Finnish and Swedish control authorities. European Journal of Clincal Pharmacology 19:157-165.

View

Hemminki E (1982)
Quality of clinical trials – a concern of three decades. Methods of Information in Medicine 21:81-85.

View

Altman DG (1982)
Statistics in medical journals. Statistics in Medicine 1:59-71.

View

Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ (1983)
Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 286:1489-93.

View

Roifman CM, Levison H, Gelfand EW (1987)
High-dose versus low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin in hypogammaglobulinaemia and chronic lung disease. Lancet 329: 1075–1077.

View

Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (1987)
A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Annals of Internal Medicine 106:598-604.

View

Huth EJ (1987)
Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 106:626-627.

View

Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ (1987)
Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-32.

View

Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990)
More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 113:69-75.

View

Hill AB, Hill ID (1991)
Differential exclusions. In: Bradford Hill’s Principles of Medical Statistics. 12th edition. London: Edward Arnold. pp 226-228.

View

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1991)
Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44:121-1278.

View

Guyatt GH (1991)
Evidence-Based Medicine. American College of Physicians Journal Club March/April: A-16.

View

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J (1993)
An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46:987-1001.

View

Standards of Reporting Trials Group (1994)
A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272:1926-31.

View

Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. (1994)
Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272:122-4.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Grimes DA, Doré CJ (1995)
The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 4:197.

View

Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S (1995)
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clinical Trials 16:62-73.

View

The CONSORT Group (1996)
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Statement. JAMA 276:637-639.

View

Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998)
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609-613.

View

Hollis S, Campbell F (1999)
What is meant by intention-to-treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670-674.

View

Jefferson T, Deeks J (1999)
The use of systematic reviews for editorial peer reviewing: a population approach. . In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, pp 224-234.

View

Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J (2000)
Intention-to-treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ 320:107-108.

View

Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I (2002)
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 287: 2799-801.

View

Hopewell S, Clarke M (2003)
How important is the size of a reprint order? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19:711-714.

View

Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW and The GRADE Working Group (2004)
Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Services Research 2004 4:38 doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2007)
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 187-90.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010)
Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376: 20-1.

View

Robinson KA, Goodman SN (2011)
A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 154(1): 50-55.

View

Montedori A, Cherubini A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, Luchetta ML, Duca P, Cozzolino F, Abraha I (2011)
Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomised trials? A cross-sectional study. Trials 12:58.

View

White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ (2012)
Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical Trials 9:396-407.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S (2013)
Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society 24: 145-8.

View

Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P (2014)
Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 348:g1741

View

Pound P, Bracken M (2014)
Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 348:g3387 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3387.

View

Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, Folletti I, Marchesi M, Germani A, Orso M, Eusebi P, Montedori A (2015)
Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2015;350:h2445.

View

Altman DG (2015)
Making research articles fit for purpose: structured reporting of key methods and findings. Trials 16:53.

View

Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Wever K (2018)
Improving the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of animal research. BMJ 360:j4935 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4935.

View

Pound P, Ritskes‑Hoitinga M (2018)
Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med 16:304 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-018-1678-1.

View

Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars C, Beumer W, Roo TC, Stafleu F, Meijboom FLB (2020)
Improving Translation by Identifying Evidence for More Human-Relevant Preclinical Strategies. Animals 10, 1170; doi:10.3390/ani10071170

View

Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, Richards GC, Rombey T, Wayant C, Gill PJ (2020)
Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 113:433-443.

View

Pan H, Peto R, Karim QA, Alejandria M, Henao-Restrepo AM, García CH, Kieny MP, Malekzadeh R, Murthy S, Preziosi MP, Reddy S, Periago MR, Sathiyamoorthy V, Røttingen JA, Swaminathan S, WHO Solidarity trial consortium (2020)
Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19 –interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results. MedRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817

View

RECOVERY Trial Team (2020)
Randomized Evaluation of COVID019 Therapy (RECOVERY). RECOVERY Central Coordinating Office, Oxford. www.recoverytrial.net

View

Horby P, Mafham M, Linsell L, Bell JL, Staplin N, Emberson JR, Wiselka M, Ustianowski A, Elmahi E, Prudon B, Whitehouse A, Felton T, Williams J, Faccenda J, Underwood J, Baillie JK, Chappell L, Faust SN, Jaki T, Jeffery K, Lim WS, Montgomery A, Rowan K, Tarning J, Watson JA, White NJ, Juszczak E, Haynes R, Landray MJ (2020)
Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852

View

Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson J, Mafham M, Bell J, Linsell L, Staplin N, Brightling C, Ustianowski A, Elmahi E, Prudon B, Green C, Felton T, Chadwick D, Rege K, Fegan C, Chappell LC, Faust SN, Jaki T, Jeffrey K, Montgomery A, Rowan K, Juszcak E, Baillie JK, Haynes R, Landray MJ, on behalf of the RECOVERY Collaborative Group (2020)
Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary Report. medRχiv. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273

View

McLennan S, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Hemkens LG, Briel M (2021)
Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials. JAMA Network Open. 4(11):e2136577. url: doi/org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36577

View

Pérez-Gaxiola G, Verdugo-Paiva F, Rada G, Flórez ID (2021)
Assessment of Duplicate Evidence in Systematic Reviews of Imaging Findings of Children With COVID-19. JAMA Network Open 4(1):e2032690.

View

Andreasen J, Nørgaard B, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, Robinson KA, Lund H (2022)
Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results-a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Systematic Reviews 11(1) 189.

View

Glasziou P, Jones M, Clarke M (2024)
Setting new research in the context of previous research: some options. BMJ Evidence Based Medicine. 29(1):44-46

View

Show


Crofton J† (2005).
Marc Daniels (1907-1953), a pioneer in establishing standards for clinical trial methods and reporting. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Wager E (2015).
Good Publication Practice 3: reflections on becoming a guideline grandmother. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG†, Simera I (2015).
A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Donaldson IML (2016).
Reflections on translating passages on ‘empirical’ and ‘dogmatic’ medicine in Celsus’s De medicina. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Haynes RB (2016).
Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: a personal reflection JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG† (2017).
Donald Mainland: anatomist, educator, thinker, medical statistician, trialist, rheumatologist. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG†, Grimes DA, Moher D, Hayes RJ (2018).
‘Allocation concealment’: the evolution and adoption of a methodological term. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I, Matthews R, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Armitage P† (2023).
Analysis of clinical trial by Treatment Allocated or by Treatment Received? Applying ‘the intention-to-treat principle’. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Nothing found, please try resetting your search filters