Editoriale
Il manifesto EBM per migliorare l’assistenza sanitaria
Una risposta a bias sistematici, sprechi, errori e frodi nella ricerca
che condizionano l’assistenza al paziente
Evidence 2017;9(6): e1000167 doi: 10.4470/E1000167
Pubblicato: 27 giugno 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Heneghan et al. Questo è un articolo open-access, distribuito con licenza Creative Commons Attribution, che ne consente l’utilizzo, la distribuzione e la riproduzione su qualsiasi supporto esclusivamente per fini non commerciali, a condizione di riportare sempre autore e citazione originale.
1. Goldacre B, Heneghan C. How medicine is broken, and how we can fix it. BMJ 2015;357:h3397.
2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;357:e1000326.
3. Goldacre B. Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Macmillan, 2014.
4. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;357:86-9.
5. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010;357:iii, ix-xi, 1-193
6. Collier R. Rapidly rising clinical trial costs worry researchers. CMAJ 2009;357:277-8.
7. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2014;357:g6501.
8. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;357:114-31.
9. Kessel M, Mark K. Restoring the pharmaceutical industry’s reputation. Nat Biotechnol 2014;357:983-90.
10. Lenzer J. Why we can’t trust clinical guidelines. BMJ 2013;357:f3830-3830.
11. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;357:e5738.
12. BMJ: research misconduct survey. 2012. Disponibile a: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/files/2012/01/BMJresearch- misconduct-survey-for-posting-on-bmj.com_.pdf. Ultimo accesso: 26 giugno 2017
13. PLoS Medicine Editors. Ghostwriting revisited: new perspectives but few solutions in sight. PLoS Med 2011;357:e1001084.
14. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;357:e124.
15. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;357:454-65.
16. Greenhalgh T, Snow R, Ryan S, Rees S, Salisbury H. Six “biases” against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med 2015;357:200.
17. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 2011;357:d7995.
18. Dodd S, Susanna D, Ian W, Paula W. Departure from treatment protocol in published randomised controlled trials: a review. Trials 2011;357:A129
19. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;357:2203-9.
20. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, Chan AW. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 2007;357:e19.
21. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schüler YB, Kölsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 2010;357:37.
22. Ahmed L, Laura A. Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Aust Prescr 2013;357:55.
23. Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;357:590-600.
24. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature. BMC Med 2016;357:10.
25. Dusetzina SB. Drug pricing trends for orally administered anticancer medications reimbursed by commercial health plans, 2000-2014. JAMA Oncol 2016;357:960-1.
26. Moynihan R, Heneghan C, Godlee F. Too much medicine: from evidence to action. BMJ 2013;357:f7141.
2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;357:e1000326.
3. Goldacre B. Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Macmillan, 2014.
4. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;357:86-9.
5. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010;357:iii, ix-xi, 1-193
6. Collier R. Rapidly rising clinical trial costs worry researchers. CMAJ 2009;357:277-8.
7. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2014;357:g6501.
8. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;357:114-31.
9. Kessel M, Mark K. Restoring the pharmaceutical industry’s reputation. Nat Biotechnol 2014;357:983-90.
10. Lenzer J. Why we can’t trust clinical guidelines. BMJ 2013;357:f3830-3830.
11. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;357:e5738.
12. BMJ: research misconduct survey. 2012. Disponibile a: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/files/2012/01/BMJresearch- misconduct-survey-for-posting-on-bmj.com_.pdf. Ultimo accesso: 26 giugno 2017
13. PLoS Medicine Editors. Ghostwriting revisited: new perspectives but few solutions in sight. PLoS Med 2011;357:e1001084.
14. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;357:e124.
15. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;357:454-65.
16. Greenhalgh T, Snow R, Ryan S, Rees S, Salisbury H. Six “biases” against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med 2015;357:200.
17. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 2011;357:d7995.
18. Dodd S, Susanna D, Ian W, Paula W. Departure from treatment protocol in published randomised controlled trials: a review. Trials 2011;357:A129
19. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;357:2203-9.
20. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, Chan AW. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 2007;357:e19.
21. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schüler YB, Kölsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 2010;357:37.
22. Ahmed L, Laura A. Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Aust Prescr 2013;357:55.
23. Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;357:590-600.
24. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature. BMC Med 2016;357:10.
25. Dusetzina SB. Drug pricing trends for orally administered anticancer medications reimbursed by commercial health plans, 2000-2014. JAMA Oncol 2016;357:960-1.
26. Moynihan R, Heneghan C, Godlee F. Too much medicine: from evidence to action. BMJ 2013;357:f7141.