Top

Health Research Policy and Systems

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Opinion

A novel approach to sharing all available information from funded health research: the NIHR Journals Library

Authors: David Wright, Elaine Williams, Colin Bryce, Andrée le May, Ken Stein, Ruairidh Milne, Tom Walley

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Relevant information on health research must be made publicly available in an accurate, timely and accessible manner if evidence is to inform practice and benefit patient care. Failure to publish research information represents a significant waste of research funds. However, recent studies have demonstrated that non-publication and selective or biased reporting remains a significant problem. The role of online publications in rectifying these issues by providing open access to study information is increasingly recognised.

Objective

This paper details a novel approach to publishing research information developed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a major funder of health research in the United Kingdom. The NIHR has enhanced its Journals Library (www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk), providing an online repository of information from research funded through five programmes. We describe how the NIHR Journals Library provides a ‘thread’ of relevant information for each study, including protocols, participant information sheets, data linkages, final reports, publications and diverse knowledge products. We also discuss the Library as a ‘living’ resource, one that is updated as each study progresses from inception to completion. Finally, we consider the implications of the Library for the NIHR, other journals and research teams submitting information.

Conclusion

Openly publishing information from funded research in the NIHR Journals Library serves as a model of knowledge sharing, maximising return on investment and enhancing the usability and replicability of research findings for different evidence-user communities. The Library also supports wider ‘research on research’ ambitions, enabling users to interrogate the repository of NIHR-funded studies, enhancing the understanding of research commissioning, design, dissemination and impact.

Video abstract: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H03uxN_iTE.

Available only for authorised users

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.CrossRefPubMed

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Powell-Smith A, Goldacre B. The TrialsTracker: automated ongoing monitoring of failure to share clinical trial results by all major companies and research institutions. F1000Research. 2016;5:2629. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10010.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Galsworthy MJ, Hristovski D, Lusa L, Ernst K, Irwin R, Charlesworth K, et al. Academic output of 9 years of EU investment into health research. Lancet. 2012;380:971–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61528-1.CrossRefPubMed

Schmucker C, Schell L, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, et al. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tompson AC, Petit-Zeman S, Goldacre B, Heneghan CJ. Getting our house in order: an audit of the registration and publication of clinical trials supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009285. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lensen S, Jordan V, Showell M, Showell E, Shen V, Venetis C, Farquhar C. Non-publication and publication bias in reproductive medicine: a cohort analysis. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(8):1658–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex236.CrossRefPubMed

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkam JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication Bias and outcome reporting Bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C. Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001978. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001978.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Ruffano LF, Dinnes J, Taylor-Phillips S, Davenport C, Hyde C, Deeks JJ. Research waste in diagnostic trials: a methods review evaluating the reporting of test-treatment interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0286-0.CrossRef

13.

Wieseler B, Wolfram N, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Vervölgyi V, Kohlepp P, et al. Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLoS Med. 2013;10(10):e1001526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001526.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, Haneef R, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566.

15.

Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr M, Gøtzsche P, Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman D, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2009;302(9):977–84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1242.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, 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(6):e1001666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Altman D, Furberg C, Grimshaw J, Rothwell P. Trials – using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Trials. 2006;7:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman D, Schulz K, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-60.CrossRef

20.

Hopewell S, Hirst A, Collins G, Mallett S, Yu LM, Altman D. Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials. Trials. 2011;12:253. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Neylon C. More than just access: delivering on a network-enabled literature. PLoS Biol. 2012;10(10):e1001417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Chalmers I, Altman D. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999;353:490–3.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Altman D, Furberg C, Grimshaw J, Shanahan D. Linked publications from a single trial: a thread of evidence. Trials. 2014;15:369. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-369.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Goldacre B, Gray J. OpenTrials: towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials. Trials. 2016;17:164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1290-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Shanahan D. A living document: reincarnating the research article. Trials. 2015;16:151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0666-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Turner S, Wright D, Maeso R, Cook A, Milne R. Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002521. https://doi.org/10.1136/%20bmjopen-2012-002521.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Eysenbach G. Peer review and publication of research protocols and proposals: a role for open Access Journals. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e37. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Hrynaszkiewicz I, Altman D. Towards agreement on best practice for publishing raw clinical trial data. Trials. 2009;10(17) https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-17.

29.

Vickers A. Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials. 2006;7:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Ohmann C, Banzi R, Canham S, Battaglia S, Matei M, Ariyo C, et al. Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e018647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018647.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, et al. Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e22101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.CrossRef

32.

Fecher B, Friesike S, Hebing M. What drives academic data sharing? PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118053. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Van Noorden R. Open access: the true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495:426–9.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Gu X, Blackmore K. Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics. 2016;108(2):693–716.CrossRef

35.

HEFCE. Consultation on the Second Research Excellence Framework: Summary of Responses (REF 2017/02). 2017. http://www.ref.ac.uk/publications/2017/consultationonthesecondresearchexcellenceframeworksummaryofresponses.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018.

Title: A novel approach to sharing all available information from funded health research: the NIHR Journals Library
Authors: David Wright
Elaine Williams
Colin Bryce
Andrée le May
Ken Stein
Ruairidh Milne
Tom Walley
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0339-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A novel approach to sharing all available information from funded health research: the NIHR Journals Library

Abstract

Background

Objective

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

A review of the process of knowledge transfer and use of evidence in reproductive and child health in Ghana

Use of the self-organising map network (SOMNet) as a decision support system for regional mental health planning

Mental health research priorities in Australia: a consumer and carer agenda

Dissemination and use of WHO family planning guidance and tools: a qualitative assessment

The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England

Building the evidence base on the HIV programme in India: an integrated approach to document programmatic learnings