Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Commentary

A living document: reincarnating the research article

Author: Daniel R Shanahan

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The limitations of the traditional research paper are well known and widely discussed; however, rather than seeking solutions to the problems created by this model of publication, it is time to do away with a print era anachronism and design a new model of publication, with modern technology embedded at its heart. Instead of the current system with multiple publications, across multiple journals, publication could move towards a single, evolving document that begins with trial registration and then extends to include the full protocol and results as they become available, underpinned by the raw clinical data and all code used to obtain the result. This model would lead to research being evaluated prospectively, based on its hypothesis and methodology as stated in the study protocol, and move away from considering serendipitous results to be synonymous with quality, while also presenting readers with the opportunity to reliably evaluate bias or selective reporting in the published literature.
Literature
1.
Nielsen M. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.CrossRef
2.
Velterop JJM. Keeping the minutes of science. In: Electronic library and visual information research (ELVIRA 2). In: Collier M, Arnold K, editors. Proceedings of the second ELVIRA conference at De Montfort University. Milton Keynes: Aslib; 1995.
3.
Joining the reproducibility initiative. Nat Nanotechnol. 2014; 9:949.
4.
Singh S. Fermat’s Last Theorem. London: Fourth Estate Ltd.; 2002.
5.
Lang T, Altman D. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in clinical medical journals: the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature, or SAMPL Guidelines. In: Science Editors’ Handbook. Edited by Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A: European Association of Science Editors; 2013. 175–179.
6.
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.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, Ellis LM, Zwelling L. A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63221.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–3.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S. Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet. 2004;363:1724–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363:1728–31.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Ioannidis JPA. Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;58:543–8.CrossRef
14.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004; 291: 291(20):2457-65.
16.
Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001666.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.PubMed
18.
19.
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane Review Syst Rev. 2012;1:60.PubMed
20.
Altman DG, Furberg CD, Grimshaw JM, Rothwell PM. Lead editorial Trials - using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Trials. 2006;7:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999;353:490–3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Wheary J, Wild L, Schutz B, Weyher C. Living reviews in relativity: thinking and developing electronically. J Electronic Publishing. 1998; 4(2).
31.
32.
Fomel S, Claerbout J. Guest editors’ introduction: reproducible research. Comput Sci Engineering. 2009;11:5–7.CrossRef
33.
Leisch F. Sweave, Part I: Mixing R and LaTeX: a short introduction to the Sweave file format and corresponding R functions. R News. 2002;2:28–31.
34.
Kauppinen T, Espindola GMD. Linked open science-communicating, sharing and evaluating data methods and results for executable papers. Procedia Comput Sci. 2011;4:726.CrossRef
35.
36.
37.
Metadata
Title
A living document: reincarnating the research article
Author
Daniel R Shanahan
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0666-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue

Methodology

How to assess success of treatment when using multiple doses: the case of misoprostol for medical abortion

Study protocol

Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT): protocol for a core outcome set using a Delphi survey with a nested randomised trial and observational cohort study

STUDY PROTOCOL

Do clinical decision-support reminders for medical providers improve isoniazid preventative therapy prescription rates among HIV-positive adults?: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a study protocol for a phase II randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Fibrinogen concentrate versus placebo for treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Evaluating an extended rehabilitation service for stroke patients (EXTRAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial