David Sackett’s Prize 2019 to Sir Iain Chalmers
The 9th International Conference for Evidence-based Health Care Teachers and Developers, organized by the GIMBE Foundation as a joint meeting with the 8th Conference of the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care, took place in the enchanting setting of Taormina (Sicily, Italy) between 6th and 9th November.
In the presence of over 200 delegates including some of the world’s leading experts from 33 countries on five continents, the GIMBE Foundation established an award named in memory of David Sackett, the undisputed father of Evidence-Based Medicine. The first edition of the prestigious award was assigned to Sir Iain Chalmers for:
- leading to the development of the Cochrane Collaboration
- launching the James Lind Initiative to help people to recognise untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments
- his flourishing scientific production: more than 500 papers in peer reviewed journals in the Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) field
- his influential books
- his courage, shared with Paul Glasziou, in pointing out research waste as a barrier to EBHC
- being a maverick: an unusual mix of biting British humour, insatiable intellectual curiosity, and Oxfordian self-composure
In his touching speech of thanks, Sir Iain referred to Sackett’s inspired and inspiring leadership of the Evidence-Based Medicine movement, his invaluable contribution as the first chair of the Cochrane Collaboration, and his precious contributions to the James Lind Library. Sir Iain ended his speech stating ironically that «EBM’s proselytization is now occurring on a global scale and threatens the very existence of “for profit”, “doctor-centred”, “authoritarian” medicine as we know it», and was warning clinicians to beware of being seduced by the Siren calls of the priests and priestesses of Evidence-Based Health Care in Taormina.
The report of the ceremony is available at: www.ebhcconference.org/previous_editions/2019/presentations/02.04.%20Cartabellotta_Sackett_Prize.pdf
Via Amendola 2 – 40121 Bologna, Tel. +39 051 5883920 – Fax +39 051 4075774, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Most published randomised trials still not prospectively registered
Widely recognized as key to improving research transparency and accountability, prospective trial registration (that is registration prior to, or no later than 21 days after enrolment of the first participant) can minimize bias from publication and selective outcome reporting, prevent unnecessary duplication of research and facilitate coordination of study efforts. It is also a condition of consideration for publication in numerous journals and has become policy for several funding and regulatory bodies.
Despite this, a recent systematic review analysing almost 9000 RCTs published in medical journals has found that only 53% of published trials from a range of clinical specialties were registered and that only 1 in 5 published RCTs were prospectively registered. Further, among published RCTs that were registered, 65% had been registered retrospectively (after enrollment of first participant) (Trinquart et al. 2018).
The good news was that the proportion of registered trials had significantly increased over time from 25% of trials registered in 2005 to 52% of published trials registered in 2015.
Despite this improvement, the proportion of trials published without prospective registration is still unacceptably high and the fundamental tenant of research transparency severely compromised. Without prospective registration, the number of initiated trials is unknown and with it our ability to assess the total evidence from both reported and unreported trials. Retrospective registration defeats a major purpose of trial registries, and eliminates our ability to assess for selective reporting of outcomes and analyses.
What are the reasons for this concerning situation? Perhaps we could ask the authors of this review, who interestingly did not register their study protocol (though registration of systematic review protocols is not a requirement for consideration for publication, it is a process ‘supported’ by an increasing number of journals, and there is a platform to do so). A recent survey of researchers who had retrospectively registered their interventional studies found lack of awareness the most common reason for not registering prospectively. Participants also indicated linking registration to ethics approval as a strategy to improve compliance. Perhaps this is a way forward.
Trinquart, L., Dunn, A. G., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2018). Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med, 16(1), 173. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1168-6
The 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) to be held on June 2-5, 2019 in Hong Kong. The WCRI is the largest and most significant international conference on research integrity. It has given researchers, teachers, funding agencies, government officials, journal editors, senior administrators, and research students opportunities to share experiences and to discuss and promote integrity in research. The conference is now a biennial event, and the University of Hong Kong and RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia are proud to co-organize the next world conference.
2018 Cochrane-REWARD prize
We are looking for those currently: entries for the 2018 Cochrane-REWARD prize are still open (until the 15th of May). http://www.cochrane.org/news/apply-cochrane-reward-prize-reducing-waste-research Nominations will be assessed against 4 criteria: (1) addresses at least one of the 5 stages of research waste (questions, design, conduct, publication, reporting) in the area of health; (2) pilot or more definitive data showing the initiative can lower waste; (3) The initiative can be scaled up; and (4) the estimated potential reduction in research waste that the initiative might achieve. The prize will be presented at the annual Cochrane Colloquium in Edinburgh (15-18 September).
Rigour mortis: how bad research is killing science
On 26th May 2014, Prof. Malcolm Macleod gave his inaugural lecture at the University of Edinburgh entitled “Rigour mortis: how bad research is killing science”.
Waste in medical academia must be addressed, Chalmers urges in The BMJ Awards acceptance speech
On 8th May 2014, Iain Chalmers, one of the authors of the Lancet series, was presented with the 2014 GSK Lifetime Achievement Award during the BMJ Awards ceremony in London. This award is given to a doctor who has made an outstanding contribution to improving health or healthcare in the UK. It highlights Chalmer’s lifetime commitment to perfect evidence based medicine and improve clinical practice. During his acceptance speech, he said that “medical academia is wasting ‘massive’ amounts of taxpayers’ money, and the public must put it under pressure to change”. He also commended GSK for being the first global company to sign up to the AllTrials campaign and praised the good “moral leadership” of the BMJ on this matter.
Iain Chalmers is a British health services researcher, a founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and coordinator of the James Lind initiative.
Videos from symposium on the Lancet series online
Interview with Paul Glasziou
Accompanying the 2014 series on research in The Lancet is an interview and podcast with Paul Glasziou, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Bond University, Australia. He is a key figure behind The Lancet Series and lead author of one of the articles.
In the interview, Paul Glasziou comments on the background work that led to the series, the future of systematic reviews, and his interest in non-drug research, over-diagnosis and over-detection.
In the podcast he additionally talks about the AllTrials campaign and the importance to register and report all clinical trials.
(Photo © Paul Glasziou/Les Irwig)