Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Angry scientists, angry analysts and angry novelists

  • Letter
  • Published:
Diabetologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bonora E (2023) The “scientist”, the “analyst” and the “novelist”: science or metrics? Diabetologia 66(4):610–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05808-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912):101–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I et al (2016) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet 387(10027):1573–1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2018) Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363:k4645. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith ML, Glass GV (1977) Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am Psychol 32(9):752–760. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.32.9.752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Glass GV (2015) Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Res Synth Methods 6(3):221–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM (2015) Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials 45:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM (2015) Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model. Contemporary Clinical Trials 45:123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Altman DG (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 308(6924):283–284. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Huber J, Inoua S, Kerschbamer R, König-Kersting C, Palan S, Smith VL (2022) Nobel and novice: author prominence affects peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 119(41):e2205779119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205779119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Calster B, Wynants L, Riley RD, van Smeden M, Collins GS (2021) Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. J Clin Epidemiol 138:219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. National Health and Medical Research Council (2009) NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Available from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/images/NHMRC%20Levels%20and%20Grades%20(2009).pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2023

  14. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B et al (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383(9912):156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mahtani KR (2016) All health researchers should begin their training by preparing at least one systematic review. J R Soc Med 109(7):264–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816643954

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G (2018) Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555(7695):175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke M (2004) Doing new research? Don’t forget the old. PLoS Med 1(2):e35. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0010035

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt FL (1992) What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. Am Psychologist 47(10):1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.10.1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Murad MH, Montori VM (2013) Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA 309(21):2217–2218. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.5616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clarke M, Chalmers I (1998) Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA 280(3):280–282. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. J R Soc Med 100(4):187–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680710011415

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Young C, Horton R (2005) Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366(9480):107–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Doi SAR, Chivese T, Xu C, Thalib L, Kanamori LF (2022) Development and evaluation of a method for determining the exit status of a meta-analysis. In: QNRF awarded projects- National Priorities Research Program. Available from https://mis.qgrants.org/Public/AwardDetails.aspx?ParamPid=fhgnggggog. Accessed 3 Jan 2023

Download references

Funding

This work was made possible by Program Grant #NPRP-BSRA01-0406-210030 from the Qatar National Research Fund. The findings herein reflect the work, and are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Suhail A. Doi & Jazeel Abdulmajeed

  2. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Suhail A. Doi

  3. Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar

    Jazeel Abdulmajeed

Authors
  1. Suhail A. Doi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jazeel Abdulmajeed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suhail A. Doi.

Ethics declarations

Contribution statement

Both authors were responsible for drafting and critically revising the article. Both authors approved the version to be published.

Authors’ relationships and activities

The authors declare that there are no relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doi, S.A., Abdulmajeed, J. Angry scientists, angry analysts and angry novelists. Diabetologia 66, 1580–1583 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-05917-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-05917-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation