medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Digital)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2015, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2015; 26 (2)


Cómo hacer más fiable la investigación que se publica

Ioannidis JPA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 74
Paginas: 187-200
Archivo PDF: 217.85 Kb.


FRAGMENTO

Los logros de la investigación científica son asombrosos. La ciencia se ha desarrollado desde que unos pocos aficionados se dedicaran a una vibrante industria donde más de 15 millones de personas han escrito más de 25 millones de trabajos científicos solamente entre 1996 y 2011 en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, los descubrimientos verdaderamente fiables y de más fácil aplicación son cada vez más escasos. Muchas de las nuevas asociaciones y/o efectos propuestos son falsos o burdamente exagerados, y la conversión del conocimiento en aplicaciones útiles es a veces lenta y tremendamente ineficaz. Dada la abundante información existente, la meta-investigación (es decir, la investigación cuyo objeto de estudio es la propia investigación) puede proporcionar estimados empíricos de la prevalencia de factores de riesgo en los altos índices de falso-positivos (estudios infundados; pequeño tamaño del efecto; escaso desarrollo de estudios previos; flexibilidad de los diseños, las definiciones, los resultados y los análisis; sesgos y conflictos de intereses; patrones endogámicos y falta de colaboración).3 En la actualidad, aproximadamente el 85 % de los recursos de investigación se malgastan.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Sorensen AA, Ioannidis JP. A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996-2011. Eur J Clin Invest. 2013;43:1339-65.

  2. Ioannidis JP (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19:640-8.

  3. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.

  4. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JP. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science. 2008;321:1298-9.

  5. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101-4.

  6. Nicholson JM, Ioannidis JPA. Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature. 2012;492:34-6.

  7. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997;387:341-3.

  8. Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol. 1998;2:175-220.

  9. Mynatta CR, Dohertya ME, Tweneya RD. Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: an experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly J Exp Psychol. 1977;29:85-95.

  10. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.

  11. Stamatakis E1, Weiler R, Ioannidis JP. Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Eur J Clin Invest. 2013;43:469-75.

  12. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156-65.

  13. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting. JAMA. 2014;311:1019-20.

  14. Danthi N, Wu CO, Shi P, Lauer M. Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of national heart, lung, and blood institute funded cardiovascular R01 grants. Circ Res. 2014;114:600-6.

  15. Ioannidis JP. More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature. 2011;477:529-31.

  16. NCI-NHGRI Working Group on Replication in Association Studies, Chanock SJ, Manolio T, Boehnke M, Boerwinkle E, et al. Replicating genotype-phenotype associations. Nature. 2007;447(7145):655-60.

  17. Ioannidis JP1, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK. The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2011;22:450-6.

  18. Panagiotou OA, Willer CJ, Hirschhorn JN, Ioannidis JP. The power of metaanalysis in genome-wide association studies. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013;14:41-465.

  19. Khoury MJ, Lam TK, Ioannidis JP, Hartge P, Spitz MR, et al. Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:508-16.

  20. Bissell M. Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive. Nature. 2013;503:333-4.

  21. Siontis KC, Hernández-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013;347:f4501.

  22. Zarin DA, Ide NC, Tse T, Harlan WR, West JC. Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA. 2007;297:2112-20.

  23. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database-update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852-60.

  24. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66844.

  25. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257-66.

  26. Dal-Re´ R, Ioannidis JP, Bracken MB, Buffler PA, Chan AW, et al. Making prospective registration of observational research a reality. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:224.

  27. Macleod M. Why animal research needs to improve. Nature. 2011;477:511.

  28. Stodden V, Guo P, Ma Z. Toward reproducible computational research: an empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journals. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e67111.

  29. Donoho DL. An invitation to reproducible computational research. Biostatistics. 2010;11:385-8.

  30. Peng RD. Reproducible research in computational science. Science. 2011;334: 1226-7.

  31. Peng RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL. Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:783-9.

  32. Doshi P, Goodman SN, Ioannidis JP. Raw data from clinical trials: within reach? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2013;34:645-7.

  33. Montfortin C. Weight of the evidence or wait for the evidence? Protecting underground miners from diesel particulate matter. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:271-6.

  34. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:669-70.

  35. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333:782.

  36. Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. Content área experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ. 2012;345:e7031.

  37. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011.

  38. Nuzzo R. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014;506:150-2.

  39. Johnson VE. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:19313-7.

  40. Young SS, Karr A. Deming, data and observational studies: a process out of control and needing fixing. Significance. 2011;8:116-20.

  41. Pashler H, Harris CR. Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Persp Psychol Sci. 2012;7:531-6.

  42. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:1359-66.

  43. Ioannidis JP, Doucouliagos C. What's to know about the credibility of empirical economics. J Economic Surveys. 2013;27:997-1004.

  44. Fanelli D. ''Positive'' results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10068.

  45. Poste G. Biospecimens, biomarkers, and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol Med. 2012;18:717-22.

  46. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490:187-91.

  47. Collins FS, Tabak LA. NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612-3.

  48. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010;40:35-53.

  49. Nosek BA, Bar-Anand Y. Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry. 2012;23:217-23.

  50. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267-76.

  51. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383:176-85.

  52. Khoury MJ1, Gwinn M, Dotson WD, Schully SD. Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine. Genet Med. 2012;14:643-7.

  53. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383:176-85.

  54. Krumholz SD, Egilman DS, Ross JS. Study of Neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial. A narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1100-7.

  55. Van Noorden R. China tops Europe in R&D intensity. Nature. 2014;505:144-5.

  56. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531-3.

  57. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712.

  58. Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ. Rethinking reanalysis. JAMA. 2013;310:499- 2500.

  59. Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e201.

  60. Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. JAMA. 2007;298:93-4.

  61. Witten DM, Tibshirani R. Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:125-7.

  62. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ. Assessing value in biomedical research: The PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA. 2014;312:483-4. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6932.

  63. Ioannidis JP. Is there a glass ceiling for highly cited scientists at the top of research universities? FASEB J. 2010;24:4635-8.

  64. Nosek BA, Spies JR, Motyl M. Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Persp Psychological Sci. 2012;7:615-31.

  65. Hayden EC. Cancer-gene data sharing boosted. Nature. 2014;510:198.

  66. Krumholz HM, Gross CP, Blount KL, Ritchie JD, Hodshon B, et al. Sea change in open science and data sharing: leadership by industry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:499-504.

  67. Editorial. Data sharing will pay dividends. Nature. 2014;505:1

  68. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342:60-5.

  69. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.

  70. Schein M, Paladugu R. Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery. 2001;129:655-61.

  71. Hagen NT. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e4021.

  72. Aziz NA, Rozing MP. Profit (p)-index: the degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e59814.

  73. Yank V, Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:661-70.

  74. Wagenmakers EJ, Forstman BU. Rewarding high-power replication research. Cortex. 2014;51:105-6.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com