Protect us from poor-quality medical research

John P. A. Ioannidis*, Siladitya Bhattacharya, J. L. H. Evers, Fulco van der Veen, Edgardo Somigliana, Christopher L. R. Barratt, Gianluca Bontempi, David T. Baird, PierGiorgio Crosignani, Paul Devroey, Klaus Diedrich, Roy G. Farquharson, Lynn R. Fraser, Joep P. M. Geraedts, Luca Gianaroli, Carlo La Vecchia, Kersti Lundin, Cristina Magli, Eva Negri, Arne SundeJuha S. Tapanainen, Basil C. Tarlatzis, Andre Van Steirteghem, Anna Veiga, ESHRE Capri Workshop Grp

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

27 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

Much of the published medical research is apparently flawed, cannot be replicated and/or has limited or no utility. This article presents an overview of the current landscape of biomedical research, identifies problems associated with common study designs and considers potential solutions. Randomized clinical trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are discussed in terms of their inherent limitations and potential ways of improving their conduct, analysis and reporting. The current emphasis on statistical significance needs to be replaced by sound design, transparency and willingness to share data with a clear commitment towards improving the quality and utility of clinical research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)770-776
Number of pages7
JournalHuman Reproduction
Volume33
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Keywords

  • medical research
  • randomized clinical trial
  • meta-analysis
  • P-value
  • equipose
  • RANDOMIZED-TRIALS
  • BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH
  • SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
  • REDUCING WASTE
  • P-VALUES
  • HEALTH
  • METAANALYSES
  • OUTCOMES

Cite this