Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Evaluate Biomedical Research Publications Rigorously

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Academic Medicine Handbook

  • 3057 Accesses

Abstract

Evaluating the quality of published studies and their outcomes is much more complex than is typically imagined. Lack of uniformity makes it difficult for readers to properly assess the validity of empirical findings in the biomedical literature. Many guidelines have been developed to help academic faculty in reporting study findings and understanding the adequacy of the study design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. Dedicated efforts to apply these guidelines will bring benefit to individual health and society at large.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, The CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.

    Google Scholar 

  2. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-173.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daly J, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, Huges E. A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:43–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Goetzsche PC, et al. The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moher D, Simera I, Schulz KF, Hoey J, Altman DG. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. Biomed Cent Med. 2008;6:13.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:847–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research: we need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons. Br Med J. 1994;308:283–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287(21):2765–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernandez-Taylor S, Hyun JK, Reeder RN, Harris AHS. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact medical journals. Biomed Cent Res Notes. 2011;4:304.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19:640–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ioannidis JP, Karassa F. The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2010;341:762–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaul S, Diamond GA. Trial and error. How to avoid commonly encountered limitations of published clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:415–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stone GW, Pocock SJ. Randomized trials, statistics, and clinical inference. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:428–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Folse SB, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008, Issue 2. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris AHS, Reeder R, Hyun JK. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43:1231–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lang T. Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. Croat Med J. 2004;45(4):361–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Malek MH, Berger DE, Coburn JW. On the inappropriateness of stepwise regression analysis for model building and testing. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;101:263–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stasak AM, Aaman Q, Pfeiffer KP, Gobel G, Ulmer H. Statistical errors in medical research – review of common pitfalls. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007;137:44–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schatz P, Jay KA, McComb J, McLaughlin JR. Misuse of statistical tests in Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology publications. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20:1053–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN. The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–7. Review.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299(2):211–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke J, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. Br Med J. 2004;328:39–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Additional Resources

  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Long T, Johnson M. Rigor, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eff Nurs. 2000;4:30–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, MSC 09 5040, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Teddy D. Warner

Authors
  1. Teddy D. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral, Stanford University School of Medicine, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, 94305, California, USA

    Laura Weiss Roberts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Warner, T.D. (2013). How to Evaluate Biomedical Research Publications Rigorously. In: Roberts, L. (eds) The Academic Medicine Handbook. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5692-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5693-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation