Evidence-based journalology: past, present and future_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

DU Liang ^1,2 , CAI Yujia ^1,2 , ZHANG Yonggang ^1,2 ,  LI Youping ¹

1. Chinese Evidence-Bassed Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;
2. West China Medicul Publisher, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

LI Youping, Email: yzmylab@hotmail.com

Keywords：

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201904152

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Citation： DU Liang, CAI Yujia, ZHANG Yonggang, LI Youping. Evidence-based journalology: past, present and future. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(6): 729-736. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201904152 Copy

1.	Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 1992, 268(17): 2420-2425.
2.	Results of poll. Most important advance. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/suppl/2007/01/18/334.suppl_1.DC3.
3.	陈耀龙, 艾昌林, 李幼平. " 循证”冠名的医学期刊比较研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(4): 289-295.
4.	Moher D, Ravaud P. Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1): 154.
5.	Definition of research misconduct. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct.
6.	Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics, 2011, 37(4): 249-253.
7.	Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics, 2011, 37(9): 567-570.
8.	Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012, 109(42): 17028-17033.
9.	Woodhead M. 80% of China's clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds. BMJ, 2016, 355: i5396.
10.	Wu T, Li Y, Bian Z, et al. Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized? Trials, 2009, 10: 46.
11.	Schor S, Karten I. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA, 1966, 195(13): 1123-1128.
12.	王倩, 张博恒. 五种中华医学会系列杂志论著中统计方法的应用现况. 中华医学杂志, 1998, (3): 70-73.
13.	Lee CM, Soin HK, Einarson TR. Statistics in the pharmacy literature. The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2004, 38(9): 1412-1418.
14.	Afshar K, Jafari S, Seth A, et al. Publications by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology: the quality of research design and statistical methodology. J Urol, 2009, 182(4 Suppl): 1906-1910.
15.	Kim JS, Kim DK, Hong SJ. Assessment of errors and misused statistics in dental research. Int Dent J, 2011, 61(3): 163-167.
16.	Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 1: study designs and methodologic sources of error. Anesth Analg, 2015, 121(4): 1034-1042.
17.	Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 176-185.
18.	Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
19.	Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet, 2014, 383(9913): 257-266.
20.	Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 2014, 383(9913): 267-276.
21.	Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 166-175.
22.	Bhopal RS. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research. Lancet, 2016, 388(10044): 562.
23.	Couzin-Frankel J. ‘Journalologists’ use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science? Sep. 19, 2018. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/journalologists-use-scientific-methods-study-academic-publishing-their-work-improving.
24.	A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA, 1994, 272(24): 1926-1931.
25.	Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Ann Intern Med, 1994, 121(11): 894-895.
26.	Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA, 1996, 276(8): 637-639.
27.	Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 2001, 285(15): 1987-1991.
28.	Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c332.
29.	Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/about-us/history/.
30.	Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, et al. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet, 2008, 371(9619): 1149-1150.
31.	Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research network. The EQUATOR Network, 2018. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/ (Accessed on 25 April 2018).
32.	DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA, 2004, 292(11): 1363-1364.
33.	The WHO. Statement of NY Workgroup. Available at: http://www.who.int/ictrp/news/NYStatement.pdf.
34.	Ministerial Summit on Health Research. The Mexico Statement on Health Research. Available at: http://www.who.int/rpc/summit/agenda/en/mexico_statement_on_health_research.pdf?ua=1.
35.	Viergever RF, Li K. Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(9): e008932.
36.	Taichman DB, Sahni P, Pinborg A, et al. Data sharing statements for clinical trials: a requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA, 2017, 317(24): 2491-2492.
37.	Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med, 2017, 15(1): 167.
38.	Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007, (2): MR000016.
39.	Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1): 85.
40.	Superchi C, Gonzalez JA, Sola I, et al. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 48.
41.	COST European cooperation in science and technology. New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE). Available at: http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/tdp/TD1306.
42.	Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J, 2012, 53(4): 386-389.
43.	Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 231-233.
44.	Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(1): e40.
45.	Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med, 2012, 157(6): 429-438.
46.	邱瑞瑾, 陈诗琪, 韩松洁, 等. 基于 COMET 数据库的核心指标集研究现状及进展研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(5): 622-629.
47.	CONSORT报告修订版: 提高平行随机对照试验报告质量的建议. CONSORT报告修订版: 提高平行随机对照试验报告质量的建议. 中国循证医学, 2001, 1(3): 182-184.
48.	杜亮, 蒋茜. 医学研究报告规范. 见: 李幼平, 主编. 循证医学. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社. 2014: 265-284.
49.	杜亮, 卞兆祥, 陈耀龙, 等. 医学研究报告规范. 见: 李幼平, 主编. 实用循证医学. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社. 2018: 937-973.
50.	Zhang Y, Du L, Li Y. Reporting from 8(th) international congress on peer review and scientific publication: challenges and opportunities for china's periodical and press industries. J Evid Based Med, 2017, 10(4): 243-244.
51.	杜亮, 李幼平, 张永刚. 强化两端,健全高质量证据生产的全程质控. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(11): 1241-1244.

1. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 1992, 268(17): 2420-2425.
2. Results of poll. Most important advance. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/suppl/2007/01/18/334.suppl_1.DC3.
3. 陈耀龙, 艾昌林, 李幼平. " 循证”冠名的医学期刊比较研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(4): 289-295.
4. Moher D, Ravaud P. Increasing the evidence base in journalology: creating an international best practice journal research network. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1): 154.
5. Definition of research misconduct. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct.
6. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics, 2011, 37(4): 249-253.
7. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics, 2011, 37(9): 567-570.
8. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012, 109(42): 17028-17033.
9. Woodhead M. 80% of China's clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds. BMJ, 2016, 355: i5396.
10. Wu T, Li Y, Bian Z, et al. Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized? Trials, 2009, 10: 46.
11. Schor S, Karten I. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA, 1966, 195(13): 1123-1128.
12. 王倩, 张博恒. 五种中华医学会系列杂志论著中统计方法的应用现况. 中华医学杂志, 1998, (3): 70-73.
13. Lee CM, Soin HK, Einarson TR. Statistics in the pharmacy literature. The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2004, 38(9): 1412-1418.
14. Afshar K, Jafari S, Seth A, et al. Publications by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology: the quality of research design and statistical methodology. J Urol, 2009, 182(4 Suppl): 1906-1910.
15. Kim JS, Kim DK, Hong SJ. Assessment of errors and misused statistics in dental research. Int Dent J, 2011, 61(3): 163-167.
16. Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 1: study designs and methodologic sources of error. Anesth Analg, 2015, 121(4): 1034-1042.
17. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 176-185.
18. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
19. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet, 2014, 383(9913): 257-266.
20. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 2014, 383(9913): 267-276.
21. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 166-175.
22. Bhopal RS. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research. Lancet, 2016, 388(10044): 562.
23. Couzin-Frankel J. ‘Journalologists’ use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science? Sep. 19, 2018. Available at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/journalologists-use-scientific-methods-study-academic-publishing-their-work-improving.
24. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA, 1994, 272(24): 1926-1931.
25. Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Ann Intern Med, 1994, 121(11): 894-895.
26. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA, 1996, 276(8): 637-639.
27. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 2001, 285(15): 1987-1991.
28. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c332.
29. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/about-us/history/.
30. Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, et al. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet, 2008, 371(9619): 1149-1150.
31. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research network. The EQUATOR Network, 2018. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/ (Accessed on 25 April 2018).
32. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA, 2004, 292(11): 1363-1364.
33. The WHO. Statement of NY Workgroup. Available at: http://www.who.int/ictrp/news/NYStatement.pdf.
34. Ministerial Summit on Health Research. The Mexico Statement on Health Research. Available at: http://www.who.int/rpc/summit/agenda/en/mexico_statement_on_health_research.pdf?ua=1.
35. Viergever RF, Li K. Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(9): e008932.
36. Taichman DB, Sahni P, Pinborg A, et al. Data sharing statements for clinical trials: a requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA, 2017, 317(24): 2491-2492.
37. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med, 2017, 15(1): 167.
38. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007, (2): MR000016.
39. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1): 85.
40. Superchi C, Gonzalez JA, Sola I, et al. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 48.
41. COST European cooperation in science and technology. New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE). Available at: http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/tdp/TD1306.
42. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J, 2012, 53(4): 386-389.
43. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 231-233.
44. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(1): e40.
45. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med, 2012, 157(6): 429-438.
46. 邱瑞瑾, 陈诗琪, 韩松洁, 等. 基于 COMET 数据库的核心指标集研究现状及进展研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(5): 622-629.
47. CONSORT报告修订版: 提高平行随机对照试验报告质量的建议. CONSORT报告修订版: 提高平行随机对照试验报告质量的建议. 中国循证医学, 2001, 1(3): 182-184.
48. 杜亮, 蒋茜. 医学研究报告规范. 见: 李幼平, 主编. 循证医学. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社. 2014: 265-284.
49. 杜亮, 卞兆祥, 陈耀龙, 等. 医学研究报告规范. 见: 李幼平, 主编. 实用循证医学. 第1版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社. 2018: 937-973.
50. Zhang Y, Du L, Li Y. Reporting from 8(th) international congress on peer review and scientific publication: challenges and opportunities for china's periodical and press industries. J Evid Based Med, 2017, 10(4): 243-244.
51. 杜亮, 李幼平, 张永刚. 强化两端,健全高质量证据生产的全程质控. 中国循证医学杂志, 2017, 17(11): 1241-1244.

Previous Article
Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines on Chinese rehabilitation medicine
Next Article
An excerpt of AHRQ guideline for surgical complication prevention (2017)

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Evidence-based journalology: past, present and future

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content