Skip to main content

Information

  • 447 Accesses

Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of biomedical and health information. It begins by defining the term information. This is followed by a discussion of theoretical aspects of information, followed by properties and classification of information. Next, the generation of scientific information is described, including primary and secondary scientific literature. That is followed by a discussion of electronic publishing. Finally, aspects of the use of biomedical and health information is described.

Keywords

  • Information theory
  • Scientific information
  • Citations
  • Classification
  • Peer review
  • Primary literature
  • Secondary literature
  • Electronic publishing
  • Information needs
  • Information seeking

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-47686-1_2
  • Chapter length: 99 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-47686-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 2.1
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.3
Fig. 2.4
Fig. 2.5
Fig. 2.6

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

  2. 2.

    https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline_pubmed_production_stats.html

  3. 3.

    https://sfdora.org/

  4. 4.

    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xFn_7nUAAAAJ

  5. 5.

    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ed5VVnUAAAAJ

  6. 6.

    https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish

  7. 7.

    https://ohsu.pure.elsevier.com/en/persons/william-bill-hersh

  8. 8.

    https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=DCt8udIAAAAJ

  9. 9.

    https://icite.od.nih.gov/

  10. 10.

    https://oakland.edu/enp/

  11. 11.

    https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/aturpin/

  12. 12.

    https://cis.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff.php?person_ID=13222

  13. 13.

    http://theinformationalturn.net/kardashian-index/

  14. 14.

    http://altmetrics.org/

  15. 15.

    http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html

  16. 16.

    http://www.icmje.org/

  17. 17.

    http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

  18. 18.

    https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/

  19. 19.

    https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes

  20. 20.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/for-authors

  21. 21.

    https://arxiv.org/

  22. 22.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/

  23. 23.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/

  24. 24.

    https://psyarxiv.com/

  25. 25.

    https://pcornet.org/

  26. 26.

    https://www.ohdsi.org/

  27. 27.

    https://osf.io/

  28. 28.

    https://datadryad.org/stash/

  29. 29.

    https://validation.scienceexchange.com/#/reproducibility-initiative

  30. 30.

    https://www.nih.gov/research-training/rigor-reproducibility

  31. 31.

    https://the-turing-way.netlify.com/reproducibility/03/definitions.html

  32. 32.

    https://www.equator-network.org/

  33. 33.

    http://fdaaa.trialstracker.net/

  34. 34.

    https://retractionwatch.com/

  35. 35.

    http://resource-cms.springernature.com/springer-cms/rest/v1/content/17547550/data/v1

  36. 36.

    https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines

  37. 37.

    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/

  38. 38.

    https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/search.html

  39. 39.

    http://www.prisma-statement.org/

  40. 40.

    https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

  41. 41.

    https://www.wikipedia.org/

  42. 42.

    https://www.hon.ch/

  43. 43.

    https://contractfortheweb.org/

References

  1. Blum B. Information systems for patient care. New York: Springer; 1984.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Rowley J. The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. J Inf Sci. 2007;33:163–80.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Losee R. The science of information. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stone J. Information theory – a tutorial introduction. Sebtel Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shannon C, Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robison R. How big is the human genome? Medium. 2014 January 5, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bar-Hillel Y, Carnap R. Semantic information. Br J Philos Sci. 1953;4:147–57.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Belis M, Guiasu S. A quantitative-qualitative measure of information in cybernetic systems. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 1968;14:593–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Price D. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Pao M. Concepts of information retrieval. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Molyneux R. ACRL University Library Statistics. Chicago: Association of Research Libraries; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jinha A. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing. 2010;23:258–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Oxford: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers2009 September, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Durack D. The weight of medical knowledge. N Engl J Med. 1978;298:773–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Madlon-Kay D. The weight of medical knowledge: still gaining. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:908.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Larsen P, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84:575–603.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66:2215–22.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. King C. Multiauthor papers: onward and upward. Science Watch 2012 July, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Weber M. The effects of listing authors in alphabetical order: a review of the empirical evidence. Research Evaluation. 2018;27:238–45.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Ioannidis J, Klavans R, Boyack K. The scientists who publish a paper every five days. Nature. 2018;561:167–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Littenberg B. Technology assessment in medicine. Acad Med. 1992;67:424–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arnett D, Blumenthal R, Albert M, Michos E, Buroker A, Williams K, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;140:e596–646.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Martino VD, Taieb J, et al. Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem? Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:888–95.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224–33.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Beller E, Chen J, Wang U, Glasziou P. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? Syst Rev. 2013;2:36.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. McLellan F. 1966 and all that – when is a literature search done? Lancet. 2001;358:646.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Antman E, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. J Am Med Assoc. 1992;268:240–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Balas E, Boren S. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In: van Bemmel J, McCray A, editors. Yearbook of medical informatics. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2000. p. 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ziman J. Information, communication, knowledge. Nature. 1969;224:318–24.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Refinetti R. In defense of the least publishable unit. FASEB J. 1991;4:128–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Bornmann L, Daniel H. Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58:1100–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Casadevall A, Fang F. Field science—the nature and utility of scientific fields. mBio. 2015;6(5):e01259–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Varga A. Shorter distances between papers over time are due to more cross-field references and increased citation rate to higher-impact papers. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:22094–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Anonymous. Bibliometrics: an overview. Leeds, England: University of Leeds 2014 July, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Berger J, Baker C. Bibliometrics: an overview. RGUHS J Pharmaceut Sci. 2014;4(3):81–92.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Garfield E. “Science Citation Index” – a new dimension in indexing. Science. 1964;144:649–54.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Price D. Networks of scientific papers. Science. 1965;149:510–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Adam D. The counting house. Nature. 2002;415:726–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ioannidis J, Boyack K, Small H, Sorensen A, Klavans R. Bibliometrics: is your most cited work your best? Nature. 2014;514:561–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Teplitskiy M, Duede E, Menietti M, Lakhani K. Citations systematically misrepresent the quality and impact of research articles: survey and experimental evidence from thousands of citers. arXivorg. 2020:arXiv:2002.10033.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lawrence S. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature. 2001;411:521.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Antelman K. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? Coll Res Libr. 2004;65:372–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Eysenbach G. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(5):e157.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Piwowar H, Day R, Fridsma D. Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS One. 2007;2(3).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Craig I, Plume A, McVeigh M, Pringle J, Amin M. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. J Informet. 2007;1:239–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  47. Aksnes D. Characteristics of highly cited papers. Res Eval. 2003;12:159–70.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Aksnes D. Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57:169–87.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  49. Lozano G, Larivière V, Gingras Y. The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;63:2140–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  50. Acharya A, Verstak A, Suzuki H, S Henderson, Iakhiaev M, Chiung YuLin C et al. Rise of the rest: the growing impact of non-elite journals. arXivorg. 2014:arXiv:1410.2217.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bornmann L, Ye A, Ye F. Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data. J Doc. 2018;74:278–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  52. Letchford A, Moat H, Preis T. The advantage of short paper titles. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2(8):150266.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Letchford A, Preis T, Moat H. The advantage of simple paper abstracts. J Inform. 2016;10:1–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  54. Greenberg S. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2680.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  55. Trinquart L, Johns D, Galea S. Why do we think we know what we know? A metaknowledge analysis of the salt controversy. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45:251–60.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vucetic S, Chanda A, Zhang S, Bai T, Maiti A. Peer assessment of CS doctoral programs shows strong correlation with faculty citations. Commun ACM. 2018;61(9):70–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  57. Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin J, Matthias L, Norlander B, et al. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4375.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Larivière V, Gong K, Sugimoto C. Citations strength begins at home. Nature Index2018.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Leung P, Macdonald E, Stanbrook M, Dhalla IA, Juurlink D. A 1980 letter on the risk of opioid addiction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2194–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Porter J, Jick H. Addiction rare in patients treated with narcotics. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:123.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Koberlein B. The tale of a 1986 experiment that proved Einstein wrong. Forbes 2018 April 6, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Silvertooth E. Special relativity. Nature. 1986;322:590.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  63. Silvertooth E. Experimental detection of the ether. Specul Sci Technol. 1986;10(1):3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Dubin D. The most influential paper Gerard Salton never wrote. Libr Trends. 2004;52:748–64.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pao M. An empirical examination of Lotka’s law. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1986;37:26–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  66. Bradford S. Documentation. Crosby Lockwood: London; 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Urquhart J, Bunn R. A national loan policy for science serials. J Doc. 1959;15:21–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  68. Trueswell R. Some behavioral patterns of library users: the 80/20 rule. Wilson Libr Bull. 1969;43:458–61.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bates M. After the dot-bomb: getting Web information right this time. First Monday. 2002;7:7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  70. Self P, Filardo T, Lancaster F. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and the epidemic growth of its literature. Scientometrics. 1989;17:49–60.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  71. Wilczynski N, Garg A, Haynes B, editors. A method for defining a journal subset for a clinical discipline using the bibliographies of systematic reviews. MEDINFO 2007 – Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress on Health (Medical) Informatics; 2007; Brisbane: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Nash-Stewart C, Kruesi L, DelMar C. Does Bradford’s Law of Scattering predict the size of the literature in Cochrane Reviews? J Med Libr Assoc. 2012;100:135–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Venable G, Shepherd B, Loftis C, McClatchy S, Roberts M, Fillinger M, et al. Bradford’s law: identification of the core journals for neurosurgery and its subspecialties. J Neurosurg. 2016;124:569–79.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Garfield E. The impact factor. Current Contents. 1994;25:3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  75. West R. Impact factors need to be improved. Br Med J. 1996;313:1400.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  76. Smith R. Commentary: the power of the unrelenting impact factor – is it a force for good or harm? Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1129–30.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Warraich H. Impact factor and the future of medical journals. Atlantica 2014 January 10, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lee K, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2805–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  79. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis D. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:42–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. McKibbon K, Wilczynski N, Haynes R. What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals. BMC Med. 2004;2:33.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;295:90–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  82. Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. The “impact factor” revisited. Biomed Digi Libraries. 2005;2:7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  83. Browman H, Stergiou K. Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely. Ethics Sci Environ Politics. 2008;8:1–3.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  84. Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science. 2008;322:165.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lawrence P. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics Sci Environ Politics. 2008;8:9–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  86. Radicchi F. In Science “there is no bad publicity”: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact. Scientific Reports. 2012;2:815.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N. The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol. 2013;11:e1001675.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Ingwersen P. The calculation of web impact factors. J Doc. 1998;54:236–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  89. Noruzi A. The Web Impact Factor: a critical review. Electron Libr. 2006;24:490–500.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  90. Thelwall M. What is this link doing here? Beginning a fine-grained process of identifying reasons for academic hyperlink creation. Inf Res. 2003;8:3.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hirsch J. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102:16569–72.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Hersh W, Buckley C, Leone T, Hickam D, editors. OHSUMED: an interactive retrieval evaluation and new large test collection for research. Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; 1994; Dublin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kulkarni A, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse J. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2009;302:1092–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  94. Delgado-López-Cózar E, Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D. The Google Scholar experiment: how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:446–54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  95. Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006;69:131–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  96. Callahan A, Winnenburg R, Shah N. U-Index, a dataset and an impact metric for informatics tools and databases. Scientific Data. 2018;5:180043.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Ioannidis J, Baas J, Klavans R, Boyack K. A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(8):e3000384.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Hutchins B, Yuan X, Anderson J, Santangelo G. Relative citation ratio (RCR): a new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(9):e1002541.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Hutchins B, Baker K, Davis M, Diwersy M, Haque E, Harriman R, et al. The NIH Open Citation Collection: a public access, broad coverage resource. PLoS Biol. 2019;70(10):e3000385.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Lauer M, Roychowdhury D, Patel K, Walsh R, Pearson K. Marginal returns and levels of research grant support among scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health. bioRxiv. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Hall N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biol. 2014;15:424.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Andrews J. An author co-citation analysis of medical informatics. J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:47–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Eggers S, Huang Z, Chen H, Yan L, Larson C, Rashid A, et al. Mapping medical informatics research. In: Chen H, Fuller S, Friedman C, Hersh W, editors. Medical informatics: knowledge management and data mining in biomedicine. New York, NY: Springer; 2005. p. 36–62.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Zerhouni E. The NIH Roadmap Science 2003;302:63–4, 72.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Trujillo C, Long T. Document co-citation analysis to enhance transdisciplinary research. Sci Adv. 2018;4(1):e1701130.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Chamberlain S. Consuming article-level metrics: observations and lessons. Inf Stand Quart. 2013;25(2):4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Lin J, Fenner M. Altmetrics in evolution: defining & redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Inf Stand Quart. 2013;25(2):20–6.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Yan K, Gerstein M. The spread of scientific information: insights from the web usage statistics in PLoS article-level metrics. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19917.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Warren H, Raison N, Dasgupta P. The rise of altmetrics. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317:131–2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  110. Ioannidis J. Neglecting major health problems and broadcasting minor, uncertain issues in lifestyle science. J Am Med Assoc. 2019;322:2069–70.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  111. Dawkins R. The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Scheufele D, Krause N. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:7662–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Haynes R. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, and systems: the “4S” evolution of services for finding current best evidence. ACP J Club. 2001;134:A11–A3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature: essentials of evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Haynes R. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evid Based Med. 2006;11:162–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. DiCenso A, Bayley L, Haynes R. ACP Journal Club. Editorial: Accessing preappraised evidence: fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(6):JC3–2, JC3.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Sackett D, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Buckley D, Ansari M, Butler M, Soh C, Chang C. The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:425–32.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Hersh W. “A world of knowledge at your fingertips”: the promise, reality, and future directions of on-line information retrieval. Acad Med. 1999;74:240–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Slawson D, Shaughnessy A. Teaching evidence-based medicine: should we be teaching information management instead? Acad Med. 2005;80:685–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Fouad Y, Aanei C. Revisiting the hallmarks of cancer. Am J Cancer Res. 2017;7:1016–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Bourne P. Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005;1(5):e57.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356:1228–31.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Yarborough M, Nadon R, Karlin D. Point of View: four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research. elife. 2019;8:e45261.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Anonymous. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Davidoff F, DeAngelis C, Drazen J, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Hortin R, et al. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:463–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Taichman D, Backus J, Baethge C, Bauchner H, Flanagin A, Florenzano F, et al. A disclosure form for work submitted to medical journals – a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. J Am Med Assoc. 2020;323:1050–1.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  130. Taichman D, Sahni P, Pinborg A, Peiperl L, Laine C, James A, et al. Data sharing statements for clinical trials: a requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:63–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Kempner J, Perlis C, Merz J. Forbidden knowledge. Science. 2005;307:854.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Dzau V, Leshner A. Public health research on gun violence: long overdue. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:876–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Fischetti M. Government attempts to silence science are revealed in detail – a tracker reveals more than 300 government attempts to suppress knowledge. Sci Am 2019 May, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Nost E. EPA Discontinues Updates to Climate Change Websites: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative Website Monitoring Report2018 October 31, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Salas R, Laden F, Jacobs W, Jha A. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed transparency rule threatens health. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:197–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Anonymous. APLU, Other Higher Ed & Research Groups Send EPA Letter Expressing Concerns with Proposed Rule on Research-based Rulemaking. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Dal-Ré R, Janiaud P, Ioannidis J. Real-world evidence: How pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018;16(1):49.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Sox H, Lewis R. Pragmatic trials – practical answers to “real world” questions. J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316:1205–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  139. Smith R. Why scientists should be held to a higher standard of honesty than the average person. Thebmjopinion 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Moynihan R, Bero L, Hill S, Johansson M, Lexchin J, Macdonald H, et al. Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. Br Med J. 2019;367:l6576.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  141. Jamieson K, McNutt M, Kiermer V, Sever R. Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:19231–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Prasad V, Vandross A, Toomey C, Cheung M, Rho J, Quinn S, et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:790–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Glasziou P, Perera R, Reljic T, Dent L, et al. New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:MR000024.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Prasad V, Cifu A. Ending medical reversal: improving outcomes, saving lives. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Herrera-Perez D, Haslam A, Crain T, Gill J, Livingston C, Kaestner V, et al. A comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in three medical journals reveals 396 medical reversals. elife. 2019;8:e45183.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Hooper M. Scholarly review, old and new. J Sch Publ. 2019;1:53–75.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Hargens L. Variation in journal peer review systems: possible causes and consequences. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1348–52.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  148. Purcell G, Donovan S, Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:227–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  149. Garfunkel J, Lawson E, Hamrick H, Ulshen M. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1376–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  150. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2786–90.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  151. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;5:187–255.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  152. Ingelfinger F. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686–92.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Garfunkel J, Ulshen M, Hamrick H, Lawson E. Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1369–71.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  154. Emerson G, Warme W, Wolf F, Heckman J, Brand R, Leopold S. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1934–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:360–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlina W. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:12708–13.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Nicholson J. Nope! 8 Rejected Papers That Won the Nobel Prize. Authorea 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Italie H. Not so fast: many Nobel winners endured initial rejections. AP News 2019 October 14, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:791–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Beall J. Predatory journals exploit structural weaknesses in scholarly publishing. 4Open. 2018;1.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Grant A. The proliferation of questionable conferences. Phys Today. 2018;

    Google Scholar 

  162. Readings B. Caught in the net: notes from the electronic underground. Surfaces. 1994;4:9–10.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Schooler J. Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature. 2011;470:437.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Smith R. A better way to publish science. BMJ Opinions 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Stumpf W. “Peer” review. Science. 1980;207:822–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Li D, Agha L. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science. 2015;348:434–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Fang F, Bowen A, Casadevall A. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. elife. 2016;2016(5):e13323.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  170. Pier E, Brauer M, Filut A, Kaatz A, Raclaw J, Nathan M, et al. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:2952–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Wang Y, Jones B, Wang D. Early-career setback and future career impact. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4331.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Smaldino P, Turner M, Andrés P, Kallens C. Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. OSF Preprints. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Smith S. The Jordan Rules. New York, NY: Pocket Books; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Kaplan D. How to fix peer review. The Scientist. 2005;19(11):10.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Bourne P, Korngreen A. Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006;2(9):e110.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. Stossel T. Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:658–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Evans A, McNutt R, Fletcher S, Fletcher R. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effect of referee characteristics and publication language. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:149–51.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  179. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:231–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  180. Callaham M, Baxt W, Waeckerie J, Wears R. Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:229–31.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  181. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;295:314–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  182. Wager E, Parkin E, Tamber P. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med. 2006;4:13.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Haug C. Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2393–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Normile D. China cracks down after investigation finds massive peer-review fraud. Sci News. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Garrow J, Butterfield M, Marshall J, Williamson A. The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:286–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  186. Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, Barbour V, Bartolomeos K, Baskin P, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med. 2017;15:167.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Anonymous. Transparent peer review one year on. Nature Communications. 2016;7:13626.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Cosgrove A, Cheifet B. Transparent peer review trial: the results. Genome Biol. 2018;19:206.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. Polka J, Kiley R, Konforti B, Stern B, Vale R. Publish peer reviews. Nature. 2018;560:545–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Ingelfinger F. Annual discourse: swinging copy and sober science. N Engl J Med. 1969;281:526–32.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Angell M, Kassirer J. The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1371–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, de Mazancourt C. Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science. 2012;338:1065–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Chen J, Konstan J. Conference paper selectivity and impact. Commun ACM. 2010;53(6):79–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  194. Niles M, Schimanski L, McKiernan E, Alperin J. Why we publish where we do: faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. bioRxiv. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Accelerating scholarly communication: The transformative role of preprints Zenodo2019 September 24, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Sever R, Eisen M, Inglis J. Plan U: universal access to scientific and medical research. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(6):e3000273.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Abdill R, Blekhman R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. bioRxiv. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Maslove D. Medical preprints—a debate worth having. J Am Med Assoc. 2018;391:443–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  199. Sheldon T. Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature. 2018;559:445.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Oakden-Rayner L, Beam A, Palmer L. Medical journals should embrace preprints to address the reproducibility crisis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:1363–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Chambers C. The registered reports revolution - lessons in cultural reform. Significance. 2019;16(4):23–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  202. Ebrahim S, Sohani Z, Montoya L, Agarwal A, Thorlund K, Mills E, et al. Reanalyses of randomized clinical trial data. J Am Med Assoc. 2014;312:1024–32.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  203. Ross J, Krumholz H. Ushering in a new era of open science through data sharing: the wall must come down. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309:1355–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  204. Mazor K, Richards A, Gallagher M, Arterburn D, Raebel M, Nowell W, et al. Stakeholders’ views on data sharing in multicenter studies. J Compar Effective Res. 2017;6:537–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  205. Mello M, Lieou V, Goodman S. Clinical trial participants’ views of the risks and benefits of data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2202–11.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  206. Mello M, Francer J, Wilenzick M, Teden P, Bierer B, Barnes M. Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1651–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Alsheikh-Ali A, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah M, Ioannidis J. Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24357.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  208. Longo D, Drazen J. Data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:276–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Berger B, Gaasterland T, Lengauer T, Orengo C, Gaeta B, Markel S, et al. ISCB’s initial reaction to The New England Journal of Medicine Editorial on data sharing. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12(3):e1004816.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  210. Greene C, Garmire L, Gilbert J, Ritchie M, Hunter L. Celebrating parasites. Nat Genet. 2017;49:483–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  211. Rosenbaum L. Bridging the data-sharing divide—seeing the devil in the details, not the other camp. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2201–3.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. Grossman R, Heath A, Ferretti V, Varmus H, Lowy D, Kibbe W, et al. Toward a shared vision for cancer genomic data. N Engl J Med. 2016;379:1109–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  213. Collins F, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:793–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  214. Kesselheim A, Avorn J. New “21st Century Cures” legislation: speed and ease vs science. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317:581–2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  215. Fleurence R, Curtis L, Califf R, Platt R, Selby J, Brown J. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:578–82.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  216. Hripcsak G, Duke J, Shah N, Reich C, Huser V, Schuemie M, et al. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI): opportunities for observational researchers. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:574–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  217. Dalerba P, Sahoo D, Paik S, Guo X, Yothers G, Song N, et al. CDX2 as a prognostic biomarker in stage II and stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:211–22.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  218. Anonymous. Toward fairness in data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:405–7.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Merson L, Gaye O, Guerin P. Avoiding data dumpsters—toward equitable and useful data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2414–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Rockhold F, Nisen P, Freeman A. Data sharing at a crossroads. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1115–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  221. Strom B, Buyse M, Hughes J, Knoppers B. Data sharing—is the juice worth the squeeze? N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1608–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Read K, Sheehan J, Huerta M, Knecht L, Mork J, Humphreys B. Sizing the problem of improving discovery and access to NIH-funded data: a preliminary study. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132735.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  223. Kush R, Goldman M. Fostering responsible data sharing through standards. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2163–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. Tenenbaum J, Avillach P, Benham-Hutchins M, Breitenstein M, Crowgey E, Hoffman M, et al. An informatics research agenda to support precision medicine: seven key areas. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23:791–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  225. Khera R, Angraal S, Couch T, Welsh J, Nallamothu B, Girotra S, et al. Adherence to methodological standards in research using the National Inpatient Sample. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;318:2011–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  226. Bierer B, Crosas M, Pierce H. Data authorship as an incentive to data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1684–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Pierce H, Dev A, Statham E, Bierer B. Credit data generators for data reuse. Nature. 2019;570:30–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Lo B, DeMets D. Incentives for clinical trialists to share data. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1112–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. Shanahan D. Clinical trial data and articles linked for the first time. CrossRef Blog 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Hersh W, Boone K, Totten A. Data from: Characteristics of the healthcare information technology workforce in the HITECH era: underestimated in size, still growing, and adapting to advanced uses. In: Repository DD, editor. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  231. Federer L, Belter C, Joubert D, Livinski A, Lu Y, Snyders L, et al. Data sharing in PLOS ONE: an analysis of data availability statements. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0194768.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  232. Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, Cristea I, Fanelli D, Moher D, et al. Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine. Br Med J. 2018;360:k400.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  233. Tannenbaum S, Ross J, Krumholz H, Desai N, Ritchie J, Lehman R, et al. Early experiences with journal data sharing policies: a survey of published clinical trial investigators. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:586–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Fletcher R, Fletcher S. Clinical research in general medical journals: a 30-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:180–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  235. Ioannidis J. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294:218–28.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  237. Montori V, Devereaux P, Adhikari N, Burns K, Eggert C, Briel M, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294:2203–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  238. Mueller P, Montori V, Bassler D, Koenig B, Guyatt G. Ethical issues in stopping randomized trials early because of apparent benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:878–81.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  239. Allison D, Brown A, George B, Kaiser K. A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016;530:27–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  240. Glantz S. Biostatistics: how to detect, correct, and prevent errors in the medical literature. Circulation. 1980;61:1–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  241. Moher D, Dulberg C, Wells G. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:122–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  242. Halpern S, Karlawish J, Berlin J. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;288:358–62.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  243. Georgescu C, Wren J. Algorithmic identification of discrepancies between published ratios and their reported confidence intervals and P-values. Bioinformatics. 2017;34:1758–66.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  244. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman D. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. J Am Med Assoc. 2010;303:2058–64.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  245. Ochodo E, de Haan M, Reitsma J, Hooft L, Bossuyt P, Leeflang M. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin”. Radiology. 2013;267:581–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Jellison S, Roberts W, Bowers A, Combs T, Beaman J, Wayant C, et al. Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019:Epub ahead of print.

    Google Scholar 

  247. Khan M, Lateef N, Siddiqi T, Rehman K, Alnaimat S, Khan S, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes – a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192622.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  248. Lerchenmueller M, Sorenson O, Jena A. Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study. Br Med J. 2019;367:l6573.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  249. Chavalarias D, Wallach J, Li A, Ioannidis J. Evolution of reporting p values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315:1141–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  250. Nuzzo R. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014;506:150–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  251. Head M, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn A, Jennions M. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:e1002106.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  252. Benjamin D, Berger J, Johannesson M, Nosek B, Wagenmakers E, Winship C, et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:6–10.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  253. Ioannidis J. The proposal to lower p value thresholds to .005. J Am Med Assoc. 2018;319:1429–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  254. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Retire statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567:305–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  255. Goodman S. Why is getting rid of p-values so hard? Musings on science and statistics. Am Stat. 2019;73:26–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  256. Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000;290:2261–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  257. Abola M, Prasad V. The use of superlatives in cancer research. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:139–41.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  258. Krishnamurti T, Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Fischhoff B. A randomized trial testing US Food and Drug Administration “breakthrough” language. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1856–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  259. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005;2(5):e138.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  260. Smith R. Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows. Br Med J. 2003;326:1202–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  261. Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;290:516–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  262. Silverstein F, Faich G, Goldstein J, Simon L, Pincus T, Whelton A, et al. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284:1247–55.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  263. Silverstein F, Simon L, Faich G. Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib – in reply. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;286:2399–400.

    Google Scholar 

  264. Hrachovec J, Mora M. Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;286:2398.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  265. Wright J, Perry T, Bassett K, Chambers K. Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;286:2398–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  266. Jüni P, Rutjes A, Dieppe P. Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Br Med J. 2002;324:1287–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  267. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, et al. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1520–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  268. Curfman G, Morrissey S, Drazen J. Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., “Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis”. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2318–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  269. Anonymous. Is GSK guilty of fraud? Lancet. 2004;363:1919.

    Google Scholar 

  270. DeAngelis C, Drazen J, Frizelle F, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292:1363–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  271. Zarin D, Tse T, Ide N. Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2779–87.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  272. Haug C, Gotzsche P, Schroeder T. Registries and registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2811–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  274. Macleod M, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis J, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  275. Alberts B, Kirschner M, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:5773–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  276. Rzhetsky A, Foster J, Foster I, Evans J. Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:14569–74.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  277. Smaldino P, McElreath R. The natural selection of bad science. R Soc Open Sci. 2016;3(9):160384.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  278. Zarin D, Goodman S, Kimmelman J. Harms from uninformative clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc. 2019;322:813–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  279. Wong C, Siah K, Lo A. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics. 2019;20:273–86.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  280. Ludwig D, Ebbeling C, Heymsfield S. Discrepancies in the registries of diet vs drug trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915360.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  281. Tatsioni A, Karassa F, Goodman S, Zarin D, Fanelli D, Ioannidis J. Lost evidence from registered large long-unpublished randomized controlled trials: a survey. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:300–1.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  282. Shepperd M, Guo Y, Li N, Arzoky M, Capiluppi A, Counsell S et al. The prevalence of errors in machine learning experiments. arXivorg. 2019:1909.04436.

    Google Scholar 

  283. Beam A, Manrai A, Ghassemi M. Challenges to the reproducibility of machine learning models in health care. J Am Med Assoc. 2020;323:305–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  284. Arrowsmith J. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:328–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  285. Begley C, Ellis L. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  286. 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.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  287. Yong E. Replication studies: bad copy. Nature. 2012;485:298–300.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  288. Anonymous. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349:aac4716.

    Google Scholar 

  289. LeNoury J, Nardo J, Healy D, Jureidini J, Raven M, Tufanaru C, et al. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. Br Med J. 2015;351:h4320.

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  290. Ioannidis J. Acknowledging and overcoming nonreproducibility in basic and preclinical research. J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317:1019–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  291. Coiera E, Ammenwerth E, Georgiou A, Magrabi F. Does health informatics have a replication crisis? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:963–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  292. Lin J, Crane M, Trotman A, Callan J, Chattopadhyaya I, Foley J, et al., editors. Toward reproducible baselines: the open-source IR reproducibility challenge. European Conference on Information Retrieval; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  293. Baker M. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature. 2016;533:452–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  294. Errington T, Iorns E, Gunn W, Tan F, Lomax J, Nosek B. Science forum: an open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. elife. 2014;3:e04333.

    CrossRef  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  295. Nosek B, Errington T. Reproducibility in cancer biology: making sense of replications. elife. 2017;2017(6):e23383.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  296. Anonymous. Reproducibility in cancer biology: the challenges of replication. eLife. 2017;2017(6):e23693.

    Google Scholar 

  297. Merali Z. Computational science: …Error. Nature. 2010;467:775–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  298. Sainani K. Error! – What biomedical computing can learn from its mistakes. Biomed Comput Rev 2011 September 1, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  299. Joppa L, McInerny G, Harper R, Salido L, Takeda K, O’Hara K, et al. Troubling trends in scientific software use. Science. 2013;340:814–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  300. Eklund A, Nichols T, Knutsson H. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:7900–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  301. Baptista R, Kissinger J. Is reliance on an inaccurate genome sequence sabotaging your experiments? PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(9):e1007901.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  302. Vasilevsky N, Brush M, Paddock H, Ponting L, Tripathy S, Larocca G, et al. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;5(1):e148.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  303. Baggerly K, Coombes K. What information should be required to support clinical “omics” publications? Clin Chem. 2011;57:688–90.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  304. Peng R. Reproducible research in computational science. Science. 2011;334:1226–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  305. Perkel J. By Jupyter, It all makes sense. Nature. 2018;563:145–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  306. Maciocci G, Tsang E, Bentley N, Aufreiter M. Reproducible Document Stack: towards a scalable solution for reproducible articles. elife. 2019;

    Google Scholar 

  307. Somers J. The scientific paper is obsolete. The Atlantic. 2018 April 5, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  308. Menke J, Roelandse M, B Ozyurt, Martone M, Bandrowski A. Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods. Biorxiv. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  309. Anonymous. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  310. Pérignon C, Gadouche K, Hurlin C, Silberman R, Debonnel E. Certify reproducibility with confidential data. Science. 2019;6449:127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  311. Hanbury A, Müller H, Balog K, Brodt T, Cormack G, Eggel I, et al. Evaluation-as-a-service: overview and outlook. arXivorg. 2015:arXiv:1512.07454.

    Google Scholar 

  312. Roegiest A, Cormack G, editors. An architecture for privacy-preserving and replicable high-recall retrieval experiments. Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; 2016; Pisa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  313. DerSimonian R, Charette L, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1332–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  314. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657–62.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  315. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook D, Jadad A, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–13.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  316. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:2006–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  317. Huwiler-Müntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2801–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  318. von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gøtzsche P, Vandenbroucke J. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  319. Chan A, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr M, Gotzsche P, Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:2457–65.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  320. de Vries Y, Roest A, Beijers L, Turner E, de Jonge P. Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;26:1752–9.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  321. Derry S, Loke Y, Aronson J. Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  322. Fromme E, Eilers K, Mori M, Hsieh Y, Beer T. How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3485–90.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  323. Golder S, McIntosh H, Duffy S, Glanville J. Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Inf Libr J. 2006;23:3–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  324. Fontanarosa P, Rennie D, DeAngelis C. Postmarketing surveillance – lack of vigilance, lack of trust. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292:2647–50.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  325. Devereaux P, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori V, Cook D, Yusuf S, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 2005;330:88.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  326. Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Greenhalgh R, Edwards S. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. Br Med J. 2000;320:43–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  327. Politi M, Han P, Col N. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:681–95.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  328. Sedrakyan A, Shih C. Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care. 2007;45:S23–S8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  329. Sawaya G, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:871–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  330. Sheridan S, Pignone M, Lewis C. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:884–92.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  331. Berry D, Knapp P, Raynor T. Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:89–96.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  332. Gotzsche P, Olson O, editors. Misleading publications of major mammography screening trials in major medical journals. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001; Barcelona: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  333. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2799–801.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  334. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis N, Ioannidis I. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298:2517–26.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  335. Drazen J, VanDerWeyden M, Rosenberg S, Marusic A, Laine C, Kotzin S, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1896–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  336. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc O, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  337. Dunn A, Arachi D, Hudgins J, Tsafnat G, Coiera E, Bourgeois F. Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza – an analysis of systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:513–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  338. Wayant C, Turner E, Meyer C, Sinnett P, Vassar M. Financial conflicts of interest among oncologist authors of reports of clinical drug trials. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1426–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  339. Ornstein C, Thomas K. Top cancer researcher fails to disclose corporate financial ties in major research journals. New York, NY: ProPublica2018 September 8, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  340. Smith R, Gøtzsche P, Groves T. Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry? Br Med J. 2014;348:g171.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  341. Barton D, Stossel T, Stell L. After 20 years, industry critics bury skeptics, despite empirical vacuum. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68:666–73.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  342. Battisti W, Wager E, Baltzer L, Bridges D, Cairns A, Carswell C, et al. Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:461–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  343. Tierney W, Meslin E, Kroenke K. Industry support of medical research: important opportunity or treacherous pitfall? J Gen Intern Med. 2016;23:544–52.

    Google Scholar 

  344. Dal-Ré R, Caplan A, Marusic A. Editors’ and authors’ individual conflicts of interest disclosure and journal transparency – a cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e029796.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  345. Kaestner V, Brown A, Tao D, Prasad V. Conflicts of interest in Twitter. Lancet Hematol. 2017;4:e408–e9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  346. Haynes R, Mulrow C, Huth E, Altman D, Gardner M. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:69–76.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  347. Riesenberg L, Dontineni S, editors. Review of reference inaccuracies. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001; Barcelona: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  348. Wager E, Middleton P, editors. Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed journals: a systematic review. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001; Barcelona: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  349. Aronsky D, Ransom J, Robinson K. Accuracy of reference in five biomedical informatics journals. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:225–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  350. Crichlow R, Winbush N, Davies S. The accessibility and accuracy of Web references in five major medical journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292:2723–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  351. de Lacey G, Record C, Wade J. How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? Br Med J. 1985;291:884–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  352. Klein M, VandeSompel H, Sanderson R, Shankar H, Balakireva L, Zhou K, et al. Scholarly context not found: one in five articles suffers from reference rot. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115253.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  353. Perkel J. The trouble with reference rot. Nature. 2015;521:111–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  354. Ziemann M, Eren Y, El-Osta A. Gene name errors are widespread in the scientific literature. Genome Biol. 2016;17:177.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  355. Byrne J, Labbé C, editors. Fact checking nucleotide sequences in life science publications: the Seek & Blastn Tool. Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication; 2017; Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  356. Byrne J, Labbé C. Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines. Scientometrics. 2017;110:1471–93.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  357. Phillips N. Tool spots DNA errors in papers. Nature. 2017;551:422–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  358. Haynes W, Tomczak A, Khatri P. Gene annotation bias impedes biomedical research. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1362.

    CrossRef  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  359. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1385–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  360. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson P, Kirkham J. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  361. Sterling T. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance - or vice versa. J Am Stat Assoc. 1959;54:30–4.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  363. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012;90:891–904.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  364. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345:1502–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  365. Dickersin K, Min Y. Publication bias: a problem that won’t go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:135–48.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  366. Stern J, Simes R. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Br Med J. 1997;315:640–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  367. Callaham M, Wears R, Weber E, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:254–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  368. Scherer R, Langenberg P, editors. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: revisited. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001; Barcelona: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  369. von Elm E, Costanza M, Walder B, Tramer M. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  370. Crockett L, Okoli G, Neilson C, Rabbani R, Abou-Setta A, Klassen T. Publication of randomized clinical trials in pediatric research – a follow-up study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(1):e180156.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  371. Ioannidis J. Effect of statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;279:281–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  372. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  373. Turner E, Matthews A, Linardatos E, Tell R, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252–60.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  374. Turner E, Knoepflmacher D, Shapley L. Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration Database. PLoS Med. 2012;9:3.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  375. de Vries Y, Roest A, de Jonge P, Cuijpers P, Munafò M, Bastiaansen J. The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: the case of depression. Psychol Med. 2018;48:2453–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  376. Bohannon J. U.K. research charity will self-publish results from its grantees. Science Insider 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  377. Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Lost in transmission – FDA drug information that never reaches clinicians. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1717–20.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  378. Wieseler B, Kerekes M, Vervoelgyi V, McGauran N, Kaiser T. Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. Br Med J. 2012;344:d8141.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  379. Turner E. How to access and process FDA drug approval packages for use in research. Br Med J. 2013;347:f5992.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  380. Jefferson T, Jones M, Doshi P, DelMar C. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2009;339:b5106.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  381. Doshi P, Jefferson T, DelMar C. The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med. 2012;9(4):e1001201.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  382. Godlee F. Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7304.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  383. Godlee F. Goodbye PubMed, hello raw data. Br Med J. 2011;342:d212.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  384. Abbasi K. The missing data that cost $20bn. Br Med J. 2014;348:g2695.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  385. Strom B, Buyse M, Hughes J, Knoppers B. Data sharing, year 1 – access to data from industry-sponsored clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2052–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  386. Zarin D, Tse T, Williams R, Carr S. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov – the final rule. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1998–2004.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  387. Piller C. FDA and NIH let clinical trial sponsors keep results secret and break the law. Sci News. 2020;

    Google Scholar 

  388. Bruckner T. Clinical trial transparency at US universities – Compliance with U.S. law and global best practices. Washington, DC: Transpari MED2019 March 25, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  389. DeVito N, Bacon S, Goldacre B. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:361–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  390. Zarin D, Fain K, Dobbins H, Tse T, Williams R. 10-year update on study results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1966–74.

    Google Scholar 

  391. Chalmers I. Under-reporting scientific research is scientific misconduct. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1405–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  392. Wallach J, Krumholz H. Not reporting results of a clinical trial is academic misconduct. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:293–4.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  393. Friedman C, Wyatt J. Publication bias in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:189–91.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  394. Vawdrey D, Hripcsak G. Publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46:139–41.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  395. Colaianni L. Retraction, comment, and errata policies of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Lancet. 1992;340:536–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  396. Hughes C. Academic medical libraries’ policies and procedures for notifying library users of retracted scientific publications. Med Ref Serv Q. 1998;17(2):37–40.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  397. Friedman P. Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263:1416–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  398. Kochen C, Budd J. The persistence of fraud in the literature: The Darsee case. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1992;43:488–93.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  399. Whitely W, Rennie D, Hafner A. The scientific community’s response to evidence of fraudulent publication: the Robert Slutsky case. J Am Med Assoc. 1994;272:170–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  400. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature: the Stephen Breuning case. J Am Med Assoc. 1990;1990:1424–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  401. Anonymous. The Top Retractions of 2019 The Scientist. 2019 December 16, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  402. Anonymous. Meet the scientific sleuths: More than a dozen who’ve had an impact on the scientific literature. Retraction Watch 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  403. Marcus A, Oransky I. Meet the ‘data thugs’ out to expose shoddy and questionable research. Retraction Watch 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  404. Grey A, Avenell A, Klein A, Gunsalus C. Check for publication integrity before misconduct. Nature. 2020;577:167–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  405. Brainard J, You J. Rethinking retractions. Science. 2018;362:390–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  406. Anonymous. Retraction Notice. J Vibrat Control. 2014;20:1601–4.

    Google Scholar 

  407. Reich E. Cancer trial errors revealed. Nature. 2011;469:139–40.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  408. Woodhead M. 80% of China’s clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds. Br Med J. 2016;355:i5396.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  409. Carlisle J. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:944–52.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  410. Chawla D. Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation. Science. 2020;

    Google Scholar 

  411. Stigbrand T. Retraction note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Tumor Biol 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  412. Feldwisch-Drentrup H. Journal that holds record for retracted papers also has a problem with editorial board members Science News 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  413. Dansinger M. Dear plagiarist: a letter to a peer reviewer who stole and published our manuscript as his own. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:143.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  414. Finelli C, Crispino P, Gioia S, LaSala N, D'amico L, LaGrotta M, et al. Retraction: The improvement of large High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) particle levels, and presumably HDL metabolism, depend on effects of low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss. EXCLI J. 2016;15:570.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  415. Chaplain M, Kirschner D, Iwasa Y. JTB editorial malpractice: a case report. J Theor Biol. 2020;488:110171.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  416. McHugh U, Yentis S. An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben. Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii Anaesthesia. 2018;74:17–21.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  417. Marcus A, Oransky I. How the Biggest Fabricator in Science Got Caught. Nautilus 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  418. Marcus A. Anesthesiologist joins the 100-retraction club. Retraction Watch 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  419. Milne G. This science vigilante calls out bogus results in prestigious journals. Medium. 2019 November;5:2019.

    Google Scholar 

  420. Bik E, Casadevall A, Fang F. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio. 2016;7(3):e00809–16.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  421. Bik E, Fang F, Kullas A, Davis R, Casadevall A. Analysis and correction of inappropriate image duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology experience. Mol Cel Biol. 2018;38:e00309–18.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  422. Bauchner H, Fontanarosa P, Flanagin A, Thornton J. Scientific misconduct and medical journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2018;320:1985–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  423. O’Connor A. More evidence that nutrition studies don’t always add up. New York Times 2018 September 29, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  424. Bauchner H. Notice of retractions: “first foods most: after 18-hour fast, people drawn to starches first and vegetables last,” “fattening fasting: hungry grocery shoppers buy more calories, not more food,” and “watch what you eat: action-related television content increases food intake” by Brian Wansink. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1450.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  425. Drazen J. Expression of Concern: Beltrami AP et al. Evidence that human cardiac myocytes divide after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1750–7 and Quaini F et al. Chimerism of the transplanted heart. N Engl J Med 2002;346:5–15. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1870.

    Google Scholar 

  426. Anonymous. Statement on NHLBI decision to pause the CONCERT-HF trial. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health 2018 October 29, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  427. Keown A. Harvard, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Seek retraction of 31 articles with falsified data. BioSpace 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  428. Chien K, Frisén J, Fritsche-Danielson R, Melton D, Murry C, Weissman I. Regenerating the field of cardiovascular cell therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:232–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  429. Bornemann-Cimenti H, Szilagyi I, Sandner-Kiesling A. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;22:1063–72.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  430. Hamilton D. Continued citation of retracted radiation oncology literature – do we have a problem? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;103:1036–42.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  431. Anonymous. Retraction—ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 2010;375:445.

    Google Scholar 

  432. Suelzer E, Deal J, Hanus K, Ruggeri B, Sieracki R, Witkowski E. Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915552.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  433. Fernández L, Vadillo M. Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science. PsyArVix 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  434. Bakker C, Riegelman A. Retracted publications in mental health literature: discovery across bibliographic platforms. J Librarianship Scholar Commun. 2018;6:eP2199.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  435. Mistry V, Grey A, Bolland M. Publication rates after the first retraction for biomedical researchers with multiple retracted publications. Accountab Res – Policies Qual Assur. 2019;26:277–87.

    Google Scholar 

  436. Fanelli D, Moher D. What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses. bioRxiv. 2019:https://doi.org/10.1101/734137.

  437. Marcus A. Exclusive: Russian site says it has brokered authorships for more than 10,000 researchers. Retraction Watch 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  438. Byrne J, Christopher J. Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett. 2020;594:583–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  439. Phillips T, Saunders R, Cossman J, Heitman E. Assessing trustworthiness in research: a pilot study on CV verification. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019;14:353–64.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  440. Wang M, Yan A, Katz R. Researcher requests for inappropriate analysis and reporting: a U.S. survey of consulting biostatisticians. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:554–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  441. Nelson H, editor. Systematic reviews to answer health care questions. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  442. Glass G. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;10:3–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  443. Glasziou P, Irwig L. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests. In: Armitage P, Colton T, editors. Encyclopaedia of biostatistics, vol. 4. Chichester: Wiley; 1998. p. 2579–85.

    Google Scholar 

  444. Stroup D, Berlin J, Morton S, Olkin L, Williamson G, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283:2008–12.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  445. Pham M, Rajić A, Greig J, Sargeant J, Papadopoulos A, McEwen S. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  446. Munn Z, Peters M, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  447. Tonin F, Rotta I, Mendes A, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract. 2017;15:943.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  448. Friedrich M. The Cochrane Collaboration turns 20: assessing the evidence to inform clinical care. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309:1881–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  449. Clancy C, Slutsky J. Advancing excellence in health care: getting to effectiveness. J Investig Med. 2005;53:65–6.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  450. Anonymous. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine 2011 March 23, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  451. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  452. Guyatt G, Oxman A, Akl E, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  453. Fergusson D, Glass K, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials. 2005;2:218–29.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  454. Copas J, Shi J. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics. 2000;1:247–62.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  455. Egger M, Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629–34.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  456. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  457. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl E, Trivella M, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. Br Med J. 2016;354:i3507.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  458. Shekelle P, Shetty K, Newberry S, Maglione M, Motala A. Machine learning versus standard techniques for updating searches for systematic reviews: a diagnostic accuracy study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:213–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  459. Martin P, Surian D, Bashir R, Bourgeois F, Dunn A. Trial2rev: combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews. JAMIA Open. 2019;1:15–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  460. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. In: Cochrane Library. Update Software. 2003. http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/mrabstr/mr000010.htm.

  461. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer M. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:974–80.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  462. Ioannidis J. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  463. Page M, Moher D. Mass production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exercise in mega-silliness? Milbank Q. 2016;94:515–9.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  464. Page M, Shamseer L, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco A, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  465. Dechartres A, Atal I, Riveros C, Meerpohl J, Ravaud P. Association between publication characteristics and treatment effect estimates – a meta-epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:385–93.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  466. Rochon P, Bero L, Bay A, Gold J, Dergal J, Binns M, et al. Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2853–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  467. Banzi R, Cinquini M, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Pecoraro V, Tagliabue L, et al. Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis. Br Med J. 2011;343:d5856.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  468. Ketchum A, Saleh A, Jeong K. Type of evidence behind point-of-care clinical information products: a bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e21.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  469. Randhawa A, Babalola O, Henney Z, Miller M, Nelson T, Oza M, et al. A collaborative assessment among 11 pharmaceutical companies of misinformation in commonly used online drug information compendia. Ann Pharmacother. 2016;50:352–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  470. Talwar S, Randhawa A, Dankiewicz E, Crudele N, Haddox J. Caveat emptor: erroneous safety information about opioids in online drug-information compendia. J Opioid Manag. 2016;12:281–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  471. Piper B, Lambert D, Keefe R, Smukler P, Selemon N, Duperry Z. Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2018;9(2):59–68.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  472. Field M, Lohr K, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  473. Shiffman R, Brandt C, Liaw Y, Corb G. A design model for computer-based guideline implementation based on information management services. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:99–103.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  474. Hibble A, Kanka D, Penchion D, Pooles F. Guidelines in general practice: the new Tower of Babel? Br Med J. 1998;317:862–3.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  475. Cabana M, Rand C, Powe N, Wu A, Wilson M, Abboud P, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282:1458–65.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  476. McAlister F, van Diepen S, Padwal R, Johnson J, Majumdar S. How evidence-based are the recommendations in evidence-based guidelines? PLoS Med. 2007;4(8):e250.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  477. Cherubini A, Oristrell J, Pla X, Ruggiero C, Ferretti R, Diestre G, et al. The persistent exclusion of older patients from ongoing clinical trials regarding heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:550–6.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  478. Bennett W, Odelola O, Wilson L, Bolen S, Selvaraj S, Robinson K, et al. Evaluation of guideline recommendations on oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:27–36.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  479. Chen Y, Yang K, Marušić A, Qaseem A, Meerpohl J, Flottorp S, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: the RIGHT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:128–32.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  480. Maviglia S, Zielstorff R, Paterno M, Teich J, Bates D, Kuperman G. Automating complex guidelines for chronic disease: lessons learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:154–65.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  481. Friedman C, Flynn A. Computable knowledge: an imperative for learning health systems. Learn Health Syst. 2019;3(4):e10203.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  482. Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross J, Keyhani S. Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2011;343:d5621.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  483. Mendelson T, Meltzer M, Campbell E, Caplan A, Kirkpatrick J. Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:577–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  484. Feuerstein J, Akbari M, Gifford A, Hurley C, Leffler D, Sheth S, et al. Systematic analysis underlying the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in interventional medicine subspecialty guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89:16–24.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  485. Khan R, Scaffidi M, Rumman A, Grindal A, Plener I, Grover S. Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical guidelines related to high-revenue medications. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1712–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  486. Ioannidis J. Professional societies should abstain from authorship of guidelines and disease definition statements. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(10):e004889.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  487. Qaseem A, Wilt T. Disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines and guidance statements: methods from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:354–61.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  488. Laine C, Taichman D, Mulrow C. Trustworthy clinical guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:774–5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  489. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2011 March 23, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  490. Jue J, Cunningham S, Lohr K, Shekelle P, Shiffman R, Robbins C, et al. Developing and testing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:480–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  491. Frankel M, Elliot R, Blume M, Bourgois J, Hugenholtz B, Lundquist M, et al. Defining and certifying electronic publication in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2000. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/epub/define.htm. Accessed July 1, 2002.

  492. Hersh W, Rindfleisch T. Electronic publishing of scholarly communication in the biomedical sciences. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:324–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  493. Anonymous. The future of the electronic scientific literature. Nature. 2001;413:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  494. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project 2013 January 15, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  495. Silberg W, Lundberg G, Musacchio R. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveat lector et viewor – let the reader and viewer beware. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277:1244–5.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  496. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E-R. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2691–700.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  497. Scullard P, Peacock C, Davies P. Googling children’s health: reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95:580–2.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  498. Mirkin J, Lowrance W, Feifer A, Mulhall J, Eastham J, Elkin E. Direct-to-consumer Internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information. Health Aff. 2012;31:760–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  499. Kitchens B, Harle C, Li S. Quality of health-related online search results. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57:454–62.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  500. Kincaid M, Fleisher L, Neuman M. Presentation on US hospital websites of risks and benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:440–1.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  501. Bruce J, Tucholka J, Steffens N, Neuman H. Quality of online information to support patient decision-making in breast cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112:575–80.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  502. Broniatowski D, Jamison A, Qi S, AlKulaib L, Chen T, Benton A, et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:1378–84.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  503. Koren M. How Did Astronaut DNA become ‘Fake News’? The Atlantic 2018 March 16, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  504. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso J, Czarniecki S, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2018;75:564–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  505. Rothrock S, Rothrock A, Swetland S, Pagane M, Isaak S, Romney J, et al. Quality, trustworthiness, readability, and accuracy of medical information regarding common pediatric emergency medicine-related complaints on the Web. J Emerg Med. 2019;57:469–77.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  506. Overland J, Hoskins P, McGill M. Low literacy: a problem in diabetes education. Diab Med. 1993;10:847–50.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  507. Foltz A, Sullivan J. Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J Cancer Educ. 1996;11:32–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  508. Williams D, Counselman F, Caggiano C. Emergency department discharge instructions and patient literacy: a problem of disparity. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:19–22.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  509. Murphy P. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics. 1994;93:460–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  510. Gazmararian J, Baker D, Williams M, Parker R, Scott T, Green D, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281:545–51.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  511. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221–33.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  512. Graber M, Roller C, Kaeble B. Readability levels of patient education material on the World Wide Web. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:58–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  513. Berland G, Elliott M, Morales L, Algazy J, Kravitz R, Broder M, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:2612–21.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  514. Cheng C, Dunn M. Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39:309–14.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  515. Murray K, Murray T, O’Rourke A, Low C, Veale D. Readability and quality of online information on osteoarthritis: an objective analysis with historic comparison. Internact J Med Res. 2019;8(3):e12855.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  516. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:462–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  517. Gigerenzer G, Galesic M. Why do single event probabilities confuse patients? Br Med J. 2010;344:e245.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  518. Krouss M, Croft L, Morgan D. Physician understanding and ability to communicate harms and benefits of common medical treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1565–7.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  519. Epstein D. When evidence says no, but doctors say yes ProPublica 2017 February 22, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  520. Eysenbach G, Diepgen T. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. Br Med J. 1998;317:1496–502.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  521. McHenry R. The faith-based encyclopedia tech central station 2004 November 15, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  522. Shafee T, Masukume G, Kipersztok L, Das D, Häggström M, Heilman J. Evolution of Wikipedia’s medical content: past, present and future. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2017;71(11):1122.

    Google Scholar 

  523. Tackett S, Gaglani S, Heilman J, Azzam A. The reCAPTCHA of medical education. Med Teach. 2017;41:598–600.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  524. Apollonio D, Broyde K, Azzam A, DeGuia M, Heilman J, Brock T. Pharmacy students can improve access to quality medicines information by editing Wikipedia articles. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:265.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  525. Clauson K, Polen H, Boulos M, Dzenowagis J. Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:1814–21.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  526. Rajagopalan M, Khanna V, Leiter Y, Stott M, Showalter T, Dicker A, et al. Patient-oriented cancer information on the Internet: a comparison of Wikipedia and a professionally maintained database. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:319–23.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  527. Hasty R, Garbalosa R, Barbato V, Valdes P, Powers D, Hernandez E, et al. Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2014;114:368–73.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  528. Hwang T, Bourgeois F, Seeger J. Drug safety in the digital age. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2460–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  529. Crocco A, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad A. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2869–71.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  530. Ferguson T. From patients to end users: quality of online patient networks needs more attention than quality of online health information. Br Med J. 2002;324:555–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  531. Tang P, Newcomb C, Gorden S, Kreider N, editors. Meeting the information needs of patients: results from a patient focus group. Proceedings of the 1997 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 1997; Nashville, TN: Hanley & Belfus.

    Google Scholar 

  532. Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:53–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  533. Starman J, Gettys F, Capo J, Fleischli J, Norton H, Karunakar M. Quality and content of Internet-based information for ten common orthopaedic sports medicine diagnoses. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010;92:1612–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  534. Price S, Hersh W, editors. Filtering Web pages for quality indicators: an empirical approach to finding high quality consumer health information on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the AMIA 1999 Annual Symposium; 1999; Washington, DC: Hanley & Belfus.

    Google Scholar 

  535. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76:575–82.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  536. Shuchman M, Wilkes M. Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:976–82.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  537. Rennie D. Thyroid storm. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277:1238–43.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  538. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Baczek L. Media coverage of scientific meetings: too much, too soon? J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2859–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  539. Rada R. Retractions, press releases and newspaper coverage. Health Inf Libr J. 2007;24:210–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  540. Fishman J, Have T, Casarett D. Cancer and the media: how does the news report on treatment and outcomes? Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:515–8.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  541. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  542. Downing N, Cheng T, Krumholz H, Shah N, Ross J. Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-Lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature: a cross-sectional analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1176–82.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  543. Schwitzer G. A guide to reading health care news stories. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1183–6.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  544. Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Venetis C, Davies A, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. Br Med J. 2014;349:g7015.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  545. Lancaster F, Warner A. Information retrieval today. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  546. Cockburn A. Writing effective use cases. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  547. Wilkinson R, Fuller M. Integration of information retrieval and hypertext via structure. In: Agosti M, Smeaton A, editors. Information retrieval and hypertext. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 1996. p. 257–71.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  548. Gorman P. Information needs of physicians. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1995;46:729–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  549. Anonymous. From Screen to Script: The Doctor’s Digital Path to Treatment. New York, NY: Manhattan Research; Google 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  550. Elstein A, Shulman L, Sprafka S. Medical problem solving: an analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  551. Schmidt H, Norman G, Boshuizen H. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: theory and implications. Acad Med. 1990;65:611–21.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  552. Patel V, Evans D, Groen G. Biomedical knowledge and clinical reasoning. In: Evans D, Patel V, editors. Cognitive science in medicine: biomedical modeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1989. p. 53–112.

    Google Scholar 

  553. Sox H, Blatt M, Higgins M, Marton K. Medical decision making. Boston, MA: Butterworths; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  554. Tanenbaum S. Knowing and acting in medical practice: the epistemological politics of outcomes research. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1994;19:27–44.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  555. Huth E. The underused medical literature. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:99–100.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  556. Kassirer J. Too many books, too few journals. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1427–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  557. Shaughnessy A, Slawson D, Bennett J. Becoming an information master: a guidebook to the medical information jungle. J Fam Pract. 1994;39:489–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  558. McDonald C. Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:56–62.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  559. Stross J, Harlan W. The dissemination of new medical information. J Am Med Assoc. 1979;241:2622–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  560. Stross J, Harlan W. Dissemination of relevant information on hypertension. J Am Med Assoc. 1981;246:360–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  561. Williamson J, German P, Weiss R, Skinner E, Bowes F. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:151–60.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  562. Leigh T, Young P, Haley J. Performances of family practice diplomates on successive mandatory recertification examinations. Acad Med. 1993;68:912–21.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  563. Ramsey P, Carline J, Inui T, Larson E, LoGerfo J, Norcini J, et al. Changes over time in the knowledge base of practicing internists. J Am Med Assoc. 1991;266:1103–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  564. Covell D, Uman G, Manning P. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:596–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  565. Gorman P, Helfand M. Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:113–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  566. Ely J, Osheroff J, Ebell M, Bergus G, Levy B, Chambliss M, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. Br Med J. 1999;319:358–61.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  567. Ely J, Osheroff J, Gorman P, Ebell M, Chambliss M, Pifer E, et al. A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study. Br Med J. 2000;321:429–32.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  568. Ely J, Osheroff J, Ebell M, Chambliss M, Vinson D, Stevermer J, et al. Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. Br Med J. 2002;324:710–3.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  569. Ely J, Osheroff J, Chambliss M, Ebell M, Rosenbaum M. Answering physicians’ clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:217–24.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  570. Ely J, Osheroff J, Maviglia S, Rosenbaum M. Patient-care questions that physicians are unable to answer. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:407–14.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  571. Ellsworth M, Homan J, Cimino J, Peters S, Pickering B, Herasevich V. Point-of-care knowledge-based resource needs of clinicians: a survey from a large academic medical center. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6:305–17.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  572. DelFiol G, Workman T, Gorman P. Clinical questions raised by clinicians at the point of care: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:710–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  573. Curley S, Connelly D, Rich E. Physicians use of medical knowledge resources: preliminary theoretical framework and findings. Med Decis Mak. 1990;10:231–41.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  574. Connelly D, Rich E, Curley S, Kelly J. Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1990;30:353–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  575. Aakre C, Maggio L, DelFiol G, Cook D. Barriers and facilitators to clinical information seeking: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26:1129–40.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  576. Cogdill K. Information needs and information seeking in primary care: a study of nurse practitioners. J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91:203–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  577. Roberts P, Hayes W, editors. Information needs and the role of text mining in drug development. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing; 2008; Big Island, Hawaii: World Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  578. Hemminger B, Lu D, Vaughan K, Adams S. Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58:2205–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  579. Roberts K, Demner-Fushman D. Interactive use of online health resources: a comparison of consumer and professional questions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;23:802–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  580. Wartella E, Rideout V, Zupancic H, Beaudoin-Ryan L, Lauricella A. Teens, health, and technology – a national survey. Evanston, IL: Center on Media and Human Development, Northwestern University 2015 June, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  581. Ioannidis J, Stuart M, Brownlee S, Strite S. How to survive the medical misinformation mess. Eur J Clin Investig. 2017;47:795–802.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Hersh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hersh, W. (2020). Information. In: Information Retrieval: A Biomedical and Health Perspective. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47686-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47686-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47685-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47686-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)