Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpreting and Implementing Evidence for Quality Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Improvement and Patient Safety in Orthopaedic Surgery

  • 412 Accesses

Abstract

Billions of dollars are wasted on low-quality research annually. Numerous preventable and systematic biases at the level of the research ecosystem, and lapses at the level of individual study, contribute to such deterioration in research. Clinical research is particularly susceptible to such systematic biases and lapses in conduct, due to the infiltration of financial and intellectual conflict of interest, among other factors. This chapter provides a variety of conceptual frameworks for identifying tendencies of low-quality research and proposes numerous strategies capable of reinforcing high-quality research. To the extent that clinical practice relies on a robust evidence base for high-quality care, low-quality research bears adverse consequences not only for investigators, institutions, and funders, but also for patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kohn L. To err is human: an interview with the Institute of Medicine’s Linda Kohn. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26(4):227–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Evidence-Based Medicine Working G. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. James NT. Evidence based medicine. Scientific method and raw data should be considered. BMJ. 1996;313(7050):169–70. author reply 70-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Worrall J. What evidence in evidence-based medicine? Philos Sci. 2002;69(3):S316–S30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lushington GH, Chaguturu R. Biomedical research: a house of cards? Future Med Chem. 2016;8(1):1–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994;308(6924):283–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Munafo MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001747.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PM, Korevaar DA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ioannidis JP. Research needs grants, funding and money—missing something? Eur J Clin Investig. 2012;42(4):349–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 1995;310(6990):1315–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Liberati A. Need to realign patient-oriented and commercial and academic research. Lancet. 2011;378(9805):1777–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ioannidis JP. Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? PLoS Clin Trials. 2006;1(7):e36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kraus WL. Editorial: do you see what I see? Quality, reliability, and reproducibility in biomedical research. Mol Endocrinol. 2014;28(3):277–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000005.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008;5(10):e201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116(1):116–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e217. discussion e

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun. 2011;79(10):3855–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Klavans R. Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e101698.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Diong J, Butler AA, Gandevia SC, Heroux ME. Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: why research on research matters. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2005468.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(3):638–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sekula P, Pressler JB, Sauerbrei W, Goebell PJ, Schmitz-Drager BJ. Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e009972.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Golder S, Loke YK, Wright K, Norman G. Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2016;13(9):e1002127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ioannidis JP. Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(6):645–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012;344:d7202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, Firkins L, Crowe S, Cowan K. Tackling treatment uncertainties together: the evolution of the James Lind initiative, 2003-2013. J R Soc Med. 2013;106(12):482–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials. 2005;2(3):260–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Minelli C, Baio G. Value of information: a tool to improve research prioritization and reduce waste. PLoS Med. 2015;12(9):e1001882.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996;5(6):513–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mohseninejad L, van Baal PH, van den Berg M, Buskens E, Feenstra T. Value of information analysis from a societal perspective: a case study in prevention of major depression. Value Health. 2013;16(4):490–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Carlson JJ, Thariani R, Roth J, Gralow J, Henry NL, Esmail L, et al. Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(4):463–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Eeren HV, Schawo SJ, Scholte RH, Busschbach JJ, Hakkaart L. Value of information analysis applied to the economic evaluation of interventions aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency: an illustration. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearb Med Inform. 2000;1:65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Freedman LPVG, Wisman R. Reproducibility2020: progress and priorities. F1000Res. 2017;6:604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Porcher R, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ. 2015;350:h809.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 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(7):e102670.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Richter SH, Garner JP, Auer C, Kunert J, Wurbel H. Systematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments. Nat Methods. 2010;7(3):167–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):176–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(1):MR000031.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 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(11):1359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ioannidis JP. Perfect study, poor evidence: interpretation of biases preceding study design. Semin Hematol. 2008;45(3):160–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? JAMA. 2002;287(21):2765–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Perneger TV, Ricou B, Boulvain M, Bovier PA, Herrmann FR, Perrier A, et al. Medical researchers evaluate their methodological skills. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1323–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Vandenbroucke JP. 175th anniversary lecture. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge. Lancet. 1998;352(9145):2001–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wynder EL, Higgins IT, Harris RE. The wish bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):619–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Rosenthal R. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: the experimenter’s hypothesis as unintended determinant of experimental results. Am Sci. 1963;51:268–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Magazin A, Schroen AT, Soares H, Hozo I, et al. Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):583–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kaptchuk TJ. Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ. 2003;326(7404):1453–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19(5):640–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Panagiotou OA, Ioannidis JP. Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):740–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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(9):712.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Arrowsmith J. Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008-2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(5):328–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature. 2015;520(7549):609–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313(2):174–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Iqbal SA, Wallach JD, Khoury MJ, Schully SD, Ioannidis JP. Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(1):e1002333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Grande D, Frosch DL, Perkins AW, Kahn BE. Effect of exposure to small pharmaceutical promotional items on treatment preferences. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):887–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(3):158–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU. Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Campsall P, Colizza K, Straus S, Stelfox HT. Financial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and the biomedical industry: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2014;349:g6501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. De Meulemeester J, Fedyk M, Jurkovic L, Reaume M, Dowlatshahi D, Stotts G, et al. Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(2):240–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Ker K, Edwards P, Perel P, Shakur H, Roberts I. Effect of tranexamic acid on surgical bleeding: systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e3054.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Gilbert R, Salanti G, Harden M, See S. Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(4):874–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Rosenblatt M. An incentive-based approach for improving data reproducibility. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(336):336ed5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Gelinas L, Lynch HF, Bierer BE, Cohen IG. When clinical trials compete: prioritising study recruitment. J Med Ethics. 2017;43(12):803–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Russell JF. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing twice. Nature. 2013;496(7443):7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chalmers I, Nylenna M. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet. 2014;384(9958):1903–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. von Niederhausern B, Guyatt GH, Briel M, Pauli-Magnus C. Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: a comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality in patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE). PLoS Med. 2018;15(6):e1002580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NP, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Clayton GL, Smith IL, Higgins JPT, Mihaylova B, Thorpe B, Cicero R, et al. The INVEST project: investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Harris MR. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(1):81–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Goodman SN, Schneeweiss S, Baiocchi M. Using design thinking to differentiate useful from misleading evidence in observational research. JAMA. 2017;317(7):705–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2817–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Bakobaki JM, Rauchenberger M, Joffe N, McCormack S, Stenning S, Meredith S. The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2012;9(2):257–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Topol EJ. Money back guarantees for non-reproducible results? BMJ. 2016;353:i2770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Saltelli A, Giampietro M. What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures. 2017;91:62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Fortier I, Burton PR, Robson PJ, Ferretti V, Little J, L’Heureux F, et al. Quality, quantity and harmony: the DataSHaPER approach to integrating data across bioclinical studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(5):1383–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Dong Y, Johnson RA, Chawla NV. Can scientific impact be predicted? IEEE Trans Big Data. 2016;2(1)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Eli M. Cahan & Kevin G. Shea

  2. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Eli M. Cahan

Authors
  1. Eli M. Cahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin G. Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin G. Shea .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA

    Julie Balch Samora

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Kevin G. Shea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cahan, E.M., Shea, K.G. (2022). Interpreting and Implementing Evidence for Quality Research. In: Samora, J.B., Shea, K.G. (eds) Quality Improvement and Patient Safety in Orthopaedic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07105-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07105-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-07104-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-07105-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation