ChalmersTCEckhardtRDReynoldsWECigarroaJGJr.DeaneNReifensteinRW, et al. The treatment of acute infectious hepatitis. Controlled studies of the effects of diet, rest, and physical reconditioning on the acute course of the disease and on the incidence of relapses and residual abnormalities. J Clin Invest1955; 34(Part II): 1163–235. DOI: 10.1172/jci103164.
4.
MulrowCD.The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med1987; 106(3): 485–488. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485.
5.
HoffmannFAllersKRombeyTHelbachJHoffmannAMathesT, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol2021; 138: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022.
6.
PageMJShamseerLAltmanDGTetzlaffJSampsonMTriccoAC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med2016; 13: e1002028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.
7.
IoannidisJP.The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q2016; 94: 485–514. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210.
8.
BastianHGlasziouPChalmersI.Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?PLoS Med2010; 7: e1000326. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.
9.
OxmanADGlentonCFlottorpSLewinSRosenbaumSFretheimA.Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open2020; 10: e036348. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036348.
10.
OxmanADPaulsenEJ.Who can you trust? A review of free online sources of ‘trustworthy’ information about treatment effects for patients and the public. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2019; 19: 35. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0772-5.
11.
ClarkeMChalmersIAldersonPHopewellS.Reports of randomised control trials should begin and conclude with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant trials: a 25-year audit of the quality of trial reports. J R Soc Med2024; 117: 212–216. DOI: 10.1177/01410768241258090.
12.
NordMLundstedtDAltmanFAngiolilloDBorellaTFernandesL, et al. Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute; 2024. See https://v-dem.net/documents/44/v-dem_dr2024_highres.pdf (last checked September 2025).
13.
Swire-ThompsonBLazerD.Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health2020; 41: 433–451. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127.
14.
AronsonJKBarendsEBoruchRBrennanMChalmersIChislettJ, et al. Key concepts for making informed choices. Nature2019; 572: 303–306. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02407-9.
15.
StratilJMBiallasRLMovsisyanAOliverKRehfuessEA.Development of an overarching framework for anticipating and assessing adverse and other unintended consequences of public health interventions (CONSEQUENT): a best-fit framework synthesis. BMJ Public Health2024; 2: e000209. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000209.
16.
OxmanMChesireFMugishaMSsenyongaRNgatiaBNsangiA, et al. Development of a framework of potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices: a mixed methods study. F1000Res2024; 13: 1303. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.158042.1.
17.
ZorzelaLLokeYKIoannidisJPGolderSSantaguidaPAltmanDG, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ2016; 352: i157. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i157
18.
BonellCJamalFMelendez-TorresGJCumminsS.‘Dark logic’: theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health2015; 69(1): 95–98. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2014-204671.
19.
CuervoLGClarkeM.Balancing benefits and harms in health care. BMJ. 2003; 327: 65–66. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.65
20.
ChouRAronsonNAtkinsDIsmailaASSantaguidaPSmithDH, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 502–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.007.
21.
YavchitzABoutronIBafetaAMarrounICharlesPMantzJ, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med2012; 9: e1001308. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308.
22.
OxmanMLarunLPérez GaxiolaGAlsaidDQasimARoseCJ, et al. Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses. F1000Res2022; 10: 433. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.52894.2.
23.
HoffmannTCDel MarC.Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med2017; 177(3): 407–419. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254.
24.
HoffmannTCDel MarC.Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med2015; 175(2): 274–286. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016.
25.
Rejas BuenoMBacaicoa López de SabandoASánchez RoblesGA. [Health professionals expectations’ about the benefit of regular primary care interventions]. Aten Primaria2022; 54: 102235. DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102235.
26.
DechartresATrinquartLFaberTRavaudP.Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol2016; 77: 24–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.005.
27.
IoannidisJPGreenlandSHlatkyMAKhouryMJMacleodMRMoherD, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet2014; 383: 166–175. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8.
The James Lind Alliance. James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. See https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/ (last checked 4 June 2025).
30.
GrahamSSGrundyQSharmaNEdwardJSBarbourJBRousseauJF, et al. Research on policy mechanisms to address funding bias and conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a scoping review. Res Integr Peer Rev2025; 10: 6. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-025-00164-0.
31.
KorfitsenCBNejstgaardCHHróbjartssonABoutronIBeroLLundhA.Peer reviewers’ conflicts of interest in biomedical research: scoping review. BMJ Evid Based Med2025; 30: 104–117. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967.
32.
XunYEstillJKhabsaJFlorezIDGuyattGHNorrisSL, et al. Reporting conflicts of interest and funding in health care guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist. Ann Intern Med2024; 177: 782–790. DOI: 10.7326/m23-3274.
33.
TruebloodJSAllisonDBFieldSMFishbachAGaillardSDMGigerenzerG, et al. The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2025; 122: e2401231121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401231121.
34.
AllenKA.Move beyond ‘publish or perish’ by measuring behaviours that benefit academia. Nature2025; 638: 861. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-00563-9.
35.
ChapmanSJSheltonBMahmoodHFitzgeraldJEHarrisonEMBhanguA.Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ2014; 349: g6870. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g6870.
36.
HopewellSLoudonKClarkeMJOxmanADDickersinK. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009(1): MR000006. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3.
37.
DwanKGambleCWilliamsonPRKirkhamJJ.Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One2013; 8: e66844. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.
38.
FlemingPSKoletsiDDwanKPandisN.Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?PLoS One2015; 10: e0127495. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127495.
39.
PageMJMcKenzieJEKirkhamJDwanKKramerSGreenS, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 10: MR000035. DOI: /10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.
40.
JonesCWKeilLGHollandWCCaugheyMCPlatts-MillsTF.Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. BMC Med2015; 13: 282. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3
41.
RiverosCDechartresAPerrodeauEHaneefRBoutronIRavaudP.Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001566. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566
42.
De AngelisCDrazenJMFrizelleFAHaugCHoeyJHortonR, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):477-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-6-200409210-00109.
GoldacreB.The WHO joint statement from funders on trials transparency. BMJ2017; 357: j2816. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j2816.
45.
GoldacreBLaneSMahtaniKRHeneghanCOnakpoyaIBushfieldI, et al. Pharmaceutical companies’ policies on access to trial data, results, and methods: audit study. BMJ2017; 358: j3334. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3334.
46.
BaudardMYavchitzARavaudPPerrodeauEBoutronI.Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ2017; 356: j448. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j448.
47.
ManheimerEAndersonD.Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility. BMJ2002; 325: 528–531. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7363.528.
48.
DeVitoNJMorleyJGoldacreB.Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: a qualitative interview study. Health Policy2024; 142: 104991. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.104991.
49.
PageMJSterneJACBoutronIHróbjartssonAKirkhamJJLiT, et al. ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMJ2023; 383: e076754. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076754.
50.
GuyattGWangYEachempatiPIorioAMuradMHHultcrantzM, et al. Core GRADE 4: rating certainty of evidence-risk of bias, publication bias, and reasons for rating up certainty. BMJ2025; 389: e083864. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-083864.
51.
KirkhamJJAltmanDGChanAWGambleCDwanKMWilliamsonPR.Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ2018; 362: k3802. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k3802.
52.
HohlfeldAKredoTClarkeM.A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1):310. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02728-5.
53.
BeggCChoMEastwoodSHortonRMoherDOlkinI, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA1996; 276: 637–639. DOI: 10.1001/jama.276.8.637.
54.
HopewellSChanA-WCollinsGSHróbjartssonAMoherDSchulzKF, et al. CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ2025; 389: e081124. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081124.
55.
HróbjartssonABoutronIHopewellSMoherDSchulzKFCollinsGS, et al. SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials. BMJ2025; 389: e081660. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081660.
56.
HoffmannTCGlasziouPPBoutronIMilneRPereraRMoherD, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g1687
57.
HoffmannTCOxmanADIoannidisJPMoherDLassersonTJToveyDI, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ2017; 358: j2998. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j2998.
58.
PageMJMoherDBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n160. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n160.
59.
ChenYYangKMarušicAQaseemAMeerpohlJJFlottorpS, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: The RIGHT Statement. Ann Intern Med2017; 166(2): 128–132. DOI: 10.7326/m16-1565.
60.
Catalá-LópezFAlonso-ArroyoAPageMJCastelló-CogollosLHuttonBRidaoM, et al. A cross-sectional analysis identified co-authorship networks and scientific collaboration on reporting guidelines for health research. J Clin Epidemiol2023; 157: 22–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.001.
61.
BoersMKirwanJRWellsGBeatonDGossecLd’AgostinoMA, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0.J Clin Epidemiol2014; 67(7): 745–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013.
62.
de WitMKirwanJRTugwellPBeatonDBoersMBrooksP, et al. Successful stepwise development of patient research partnership: 14 years’ experience of actions and consequences in outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT). Patient2017; 10(2): 141–152. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0198-4.
63.
KirkhamJJDavisKAltmanDGBlazebyJMClarkeMTunisS, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med2017; 14: e1002447. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447.
64.
KirkhamJJGorstSAltmanDGBlazebyJMClarkeMTunisS, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement. Trials2019; 20: 116. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x.
65.
TurnerLShamseerLAltmanDGWeeksLPetersJKoberT, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012; 11: Mr000030. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000030.pub2.
66.
SamaanZMbuagbawLKosaDBorg DebonoVDillenburgRZhangS, et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc2013; 6: 169–188. DOI: 10.2147/jmdh.s43952.
67.
GlasziouPAltmanDGBossuytPBoutronIClarkeMJuliousS, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet2014; 383: 267–76. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62228-x.
68.
BlancoDAltmanDMoherDBoutronIKirkhamJJCoboE.Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open2019; 9: e026589. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589.
69.
BlancoDSchroterSAldcroftAMoherDBoutronIKirkhamJJ, et al. Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open2020; 10: e036799. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036799.
70.
NasserMClarkeMChalmersIBrurbergKGNykvistHLundH, et al. What are funders doing to minimise waste in research?Lancet2017; 389: 1006–1007. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30657-8.
71.
WhitingPSavovićJHigginsJPCaldwellDMReevesBCSheaB, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol2016; 69: 225–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005.
ClarkJGlasziouPDel MarCBannach-BrownAStehlikPScottAM.A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:81-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008
74.
ClarkJBartonBAlbarqouniLByambasurenOJowseyTKeoghJ, et al. Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: a systematic review. Res Synth Methods. 2025: 1–19. DOI: 10.1017/rsm.2025.16.
75.
GuyattGHultcrantzMAgoritsasTIorioAVandvikPOMontoriVM.Why Core GRADE is needed: introduction to a new series in The BMJ. BMJ2025; 389: e081902. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081902.
76.
DemicheliVDi PietrantonjC.Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007; 2007: Mr000003. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000003.pub2
77.
GuthrieSGhigaIWoodingS.What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Res. 2018;6:1335. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11917.2.
78.
ShepherdJFramptonGKPickettKWyattJC.Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency. PLoS One2018; 13: e0196914. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196914.
79.
SmithR.Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med2006; 99: 178–182. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.
80.
SmithR.Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res2010; 12 (Suppl. 4): S13. DOI: 10.1186/bcr2742.
81.
TamblynRGirardNQianCJHanleyJ.Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. CMAJ. 2018; 190: E489–E99. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.170901
82.
AbdoulHPerreyCTubachFAmielPDurand-ZaleskiIAlbertiC.Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France. PLoS One2012; 7: e35247. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035247.
83.
JeffersonTRudinMBrodney FolseSDavidoffF.Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007; 2: MR000016. DOI: /10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
84.
BruceRChauvinATrinquartLRavaudPBoutronI.Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med2016; 14: 85. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5.
85.
SchroterSBlackNEvansSGodleeFOsorioLSmithR.What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?J R Soc Med2008; 101: 507–514. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
86.
LazarusCHaneefRRavaudPBoutronI.Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol2015; 15: 85. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x.
87.
AntmanEMLauJKupelnickBMostellerFChalmersTC.A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA1992; 268: 240–248. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490020088036.
88.
ClarkeMBriceAChalmersI.Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS One2014; 9(7): e102670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102670.
89.
ElliottJHSynnotATurnerTSimmondsMAklEAMcDonaldS, et al. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 91: 23–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010.
90.
ChalmersIHetheringtonJNewdickMMutchLGrantAEnkinM, et al. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials1986; 7: 306–324. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90038-3.
91.
ChalmersI.The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci1993; 703: 156-63; discussion 63-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x.
92.
StarrMChalmersIClarkeMOxmanAD.The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2009; 25(Suppl. 1): 182–195. DOI: 10.1017/s026646230909062x.
93.
ThomasJNoel-StorrAMarshallIWallaceBMcDonaldSMavergamesC, et al. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 91: 31–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011.
94.
ShekellePGOrtizERhodesSMortonSCEcclesMPGrimshawJM, et al. Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?JAMA2001; 286: 1461–1467. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.12.1461.
95.
NeumanMDGoldsteinJNCirulloMASchwartzJS.Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations. JAMA2014; 311: 2092–2100. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.4949.
96.
Martínez GarcíaLSanabriaAJGarcía AlvarezETrujillo-MartínMMEtxeandia-IkobaltzetaIKotzevaA, et al. The validity of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis. Cmaj2014; 186: 1211–1219. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.140547.
Martínez GarcíaLPardo-HernándezHSanabriaAJAlonso-CoelloP.Continuous surveillance of a pregnancy clinical guideline: an early experience. Syst Rev2017; 6: 143. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0506-7.
99.
VandvikPOBrandtLAlonso-CoelloPTreweekSAklEAKristiansenA, et al. Creating clinical practice guidelines we can trust, use, and share: a new era is imminent. Chest2013; 144: 381–389. DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0746.
100.
TendalBVogelJPMcDonaldSNorrisSCumpstonMWhiteH, et al. Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19. J Clin Epidemiol2021; 131: 11–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.005.
101.
ChalmersIBrackenMBDjulbegovicBGarattiniSGrantJGülmezogluAM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet2014; 383: 156–165. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1.
102.
LundHBrunnhuberKJuhlCRobinsonKLeenaarsMDorchBF, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ2016; 355: i5440. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5440.
103.
SiontisKCHernandez-BoussardTIoannidisJP.Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ2013; 347: f4501. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f4501.
104.
NaudetFSchuitEIoannidisJPA. Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Int J Epidemiol2017; 46: 1999–2008. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx138.
StewartLMoherDShekelleP.Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev2012; 1: 7. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7.
107.
Suarez-LledoVAlvarez-GalvezJ.Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res2021; 23: e17187. DOI: 10.2196/17187.
108.
EysenbachGPowellJKussOSaER.Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA2002; 287: 2691–700. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.
109.
RoundtreeAKKallenMALopez-OlivoMAKimmelBSkidmoreBOrtizZ, et al. Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62: 128–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.003.
110.
BorgesdoNascimentoIJPizarroABAlmeidaJMAzzopardi-MuscatNGonçalvesMABjörklundM, et al. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ2022; 100: 544–561. DOI: 10.2471/blt.21.287654.
111.
SmithRChenKWinnerDFriedhoffSWardleC.A systematic review of Covid-19 misinformation interventions: Lessons learned. Health Aff2023; 42: 1738–1746. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00717.
112.
ZhangSZhouHZhuY.Have we found a solution for health misinformation? A ten-year systematic review of health misinformation literature 2013-2022. Int J Med Inform2024; 188: 105478. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105478
113.
SchlichtIBFernandezEChulviBRossoP.Automatic detection of health misinformation: a systematic review. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput2023: 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s12652-023-04619-4.
114.
MeyrowitschDWJensenAKSørensenJBVargaTV.AI chatbots and (mis)information in public health: impact on vulnerable communities. Front Public Health2023; 11: 1226776. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1226776.
GlentonCPaulsenEJOxmanAD.Portals to Wonderland: health portals lead to confusing information about the effects of health care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2005; 5: 7. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-5-7.
117.
DahlgrenAFuruseth-OlsenKRoseCJOxmanAD.The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy. F1000Research2021; 9: 179. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.21902.2.
118.
Del FiolGWorkmanTEGormanPN. Clinical questions raised by clinicians at the point of care: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med2014; 174: 710–718. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.368.
119.
BrownleeSChalkidouKDoustJElshaugAGGlasziouPHeathI, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet2017; 390: 156–168. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5.
120.
GlasziouPStrausSBrownleeSTrevenaLDansLGuyattG, et al. Evidence for underuse of effective medical services around the world. Lancet2017; 390: 169–177. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30946-1.
121.
SquiresJECho-YoungDAloisioLDBellRBornsteinSBrienSE, et al. Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review. CMAJ2022; 194: E279–E96. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.211416.
122.
SchusterMAMcGlynnEABrookRH.How good is the quality of health care in the United States?Milbank Q2005; 83: 843–895. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00403.x.
123.
SeddonMEMarshallMNCampbellSMRolandMO.Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Qual Health Care2001; 10: 152–158. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.0100152.
124.
McGlynnEAAschSMAdamsJKeeseyJHicksJDeCristofaroA, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med2003; 348: 2635–2645. DOI: 10.1056/nejmsa022615.
125.
GrolR.Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care2001; 39(Suppl. 2): Ii46-54. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003.
MorrisZSWoodingSGrantJ.The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med2011; 104: 510–520. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180.
128.
DjulbegovicBGuyattGH.Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet2017; 390: 415–423. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6.
OxmanADLavisJNLewinSFretheimA.SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?Health Res Policy Syst2009; 7(Suppl. 1): S1. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s1.
131.
DanielsNSabinJ.Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff1997; 26: 303–350. DOI: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x.
HanneySRGonzález-BlockMA.Evidence-informed health policy: are we beginning to get there at last?Health Res Policy Syst2009; 7: 30. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-30.
World Health Organization. Evidence as a catalyst for policy and societal change: towards more equitable, resilient and sustainable global health. Meeting report of the WHO Global Evidence-to-Policy Summit, 15–17 November 2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240052130
CroweSFentonMHallMCowanKChalmersI.Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem2015; 1: 2. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x.
139.
MacLeanSMullaSAklEAJankowskiMVandvikPOEbrahimS, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest2012; 141(2 Suppl.): e1S–e23S. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2290.
Alonso-CoelloPMontoriVMDíazMGDevereauxPJMasGDiezAI, et al. Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives. Health Expect2015; 18: 2318–2327. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12201.
142.
ChewningBBylundCLShahBAroraNKGueguenJAMakoulG.Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns2012; 86: 9–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004.
143.
CouëtNDesrochesSRobitailleHVaillancourtHLeblancATurcotteS, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect2015; 18: 542–561. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12054.
144.
StaceyDLewisKBSmithMCarleyMVolkRDouglasEE, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2024; 1: Cd001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub6.
145.
SchunemannHJFretheimAOxmanAD.Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst2006; 4: 22. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-4-22.
146.
RashidAThomasVShawTLengG.Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient2017; 10: 277–282. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0206-8
147.
BryantEAScottAMGreenwoodHThomasR.Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review. BMJ Open2022; 12(9): e055428. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055428.
NorheimOFAbi-RachedJMBrightLKBærøeKFerrazOLMGloppenS, et al. Difficult trade-offs in response to COVID-19: the case for open and inclusive decision making. Nat Med2021; 27: 10–13. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-01204-6.
150.
TanANagrajSKNasserMSharmaTKuchenmüllerT.What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews. Bull Natl Res Cent2022; 46: 6. DOI: 10.1186/s42269-021-00687-8.
BrettJStaniszewskaSMockfordCHerron-MarxSHughesJTysallC, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect2014; 17: 637–650. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
153.
ConcannonTWFusterMSaundersTPatelKWongJBLeslieLK, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med2014; 29: 1692–1701. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x.
154.
DomecqJPPrutskyGElraiyahTWangZNabhanMShippeeN, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res2014; 14: 89. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
155.
PollockACampbellPStruthersCSynnotANunnJHillS, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev2018; 7: 208. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0.
156.
NilsenESMyrhaugHTJohansenMOliverSOxmanAD.Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2006; 3: CD004563. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004563.pub2.
157.
WilesLKKayDLukerJAWorleyAAustinJBallA, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: a systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. PLoS One2022; 17(1): e0261808. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261808
158.
AbelsonJForestP-GEylesJSmithPMartinEGauvinF-P.Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med2003; 57: 239–251. DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X.
159.
ConklinAMorrisZNolteE.What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect2015; 18(2): 153–165. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12038.
160.
LloydNKennyAHyettN.Evaluating health service outcomes of public involvement in health service design in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res2021; 21: 364. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06319-1.
161.
BaumannLAReinholdAKBrüttAL.Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – a scoping review. Health Policy2022; 126: 1023–1038. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.07.007.
162.
AguileraBDonyaRSVélezCMKapiririLAbelsonJNouvetE, et al. Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: a synthesis of findings from 70 countries. Health Policy2024; 142: 105013. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105013.
163.
Munthe-KaasHMOxmanADvon LieresBGloppenSOhrenA.Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health2024; 9: e014404. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404
164.
WangDBarabásiA-L.The Science of Collaboration. In: The Science of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021: 81–158. DOI: 10.1017/9781108610834.010.
165.
WuchtySJonesBFUzziB.The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science2007; 316(5827): 1036–1039. DOI: 10.1126/science.1136099.
ChalmersIGlasziouP.Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet2009; 374(9683): 86–89. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60329-9.
168.
Al-Shahi SalmanRBellerEKaganJHemminkiEPhillipsRSSavulescuJ, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet2014; 383(9912): 176–185. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62297-7.
169.
ChanAWSongFVickersAJeffersonTDickersinKGøtzschePC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet2014; 383(9913): 257–266. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62296-5.
170.
ElshaugAGRosenthalMBLavisJNBrownleeSSchmidtHNagpalS, et al. Levers for addressing medical underuse and overuse: achieving high-value health care. Lancet2017; 390(10090): 191–202. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32586-7.
171.
BradleySHDeVitoNJLloydKERichardsGCRombeyTWayantC, et al. Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. J R Soc Med2020; 113(11): 433–443. DOI: 10.1177/0141076820956799
172.
Center for Open Science. Registered Reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices. See https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports (last checked 6 June 2025).
173.
DavidsonMKorfitsenCBRiverosCChaimaniABoutronI.Post-publication peer review and the identification of methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials: a qualitative study. BMJ Evid Based Med2025; 30: 233–240. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113068.
174.
BOLDER Research Group. Better Outcomes through Learning, Data, Engagement, and Research (BOLDER) – a system for improving evidence and clinical practice in low and middle income countries. F1000Res2016; 5: 693. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8392.1.
175.
EnglishMIrimuGAgweyuAGatharaDOliwaJAyiekoP, et al. Building learning health systems to accelerate research and improve outcomes of clinical care in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Med2016; 13: e1001991. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001991.
176.
McDonaldPLFoleyTJVerheijRBraithwaiteJRubinJHarwoodK, et al. Data to knowledge to improvement: creating the learning health system. BMJ2024; 384: e076175. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076175.
ChalmersI.Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci2003; 589(1): 22–40. DOI: 10.1177/0002716203254762.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
