History of evidence-based research

Tröhler U. Lind and scurvy: 1747 to 1795. J Royal Soc Med 2005; 98: 519–522. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/james-lind-and-scurvy-1747-to-1795/

Lind J . A treatise of the scurvy. In three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure, of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject. Edinburgh: Printed by Sands, Murray and Cochran for A Kincaid and A Donaldson. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/lind-j-1753/ (1753).

Lau J Antman EM Jimenez-Silva J Kupelnick B Mosteller F Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 248–254.

Savulescu J. Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees? J Med Ethics 2002; 28: 1–2.

Fergusson D Glass KC Hutton B Shapiro S (2005). Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials 2005; 2: 218–229; discussion 229-32.

Robinson KA. Use of Prior Research in the Justification and Interpretation of Clinical Trials. Johns Hopkins University, 2009.

Antman EM Lau J Kupelnick B Mosteller F Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268: 240–248. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/antman-em-lau-j-kupelnick-b-mosteller-f-chalmers-tc-1992/ (Accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Lund H. From evidence-based practice to evidence-based research-Reaching research-worthy problems by applying an evidence-based approach. Eur J Physiother 2014; 16: 65–66.

Robinson KA Brunnhuber K Ciliska D , et al. Evidence-Based research series-paper 1: what evidence-based research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 151–157.

Wootton D. The Invention of Science – A New History of the Scientific Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015.

Warren J. Remarks on angina pectoris. New England Journal of Medicine 1812; 1: 1–11. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/warren-j-1812/ (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Chalmers I Hedges LV Cooper H . A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions 2002; 25: 12–37.

Light RJ Pillemer DB . Summing up. The science of reviewing research. Boston: Harvard University Press. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/light-rj-pillemer-db-1984/ (1984). (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Amancio DR Nunes MGV Oliveira ON Costa LdF . Using complex networks concepts to assess approaches for citations in scientific papers. Scientometrics 2012; 91: 827–842.

Thornley C Watkinson A Nicholas D , et al. The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. Inform Res 2015; 20: 677.

Bradford Hill A . Report of Editors’ Conference: the reasons for writing. Br Med J 1965; 2: 870–872. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/hill-ab-1965/ (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Garfield E. Bibliographic negligence: a serious transgression. The Scientist, 1991.

Chalmers TC Frank CS Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990; 263: 1392–1395.

Mulrow CD (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 597–599.

Begg C Cho M Eastwood S , et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–639. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/the-consort-group-1996/ (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Moher D Hopewell S Schulz KF , et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: e1–e37.

Hopewell S Chan AW Collins GS , et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ 2025; 389: e081123.

Jia Y Li B Yang Z , et al. Trends of randomized clinical trials citing prior systematic reviews, 2007-2021. JAMA Network Open 2023; 6: e234219.

Savulescu J Chalmers I Blunt J. Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability. BMJ 1996; 313: 1390–1393.

Clarke M Chalmers I ALderson P Hopewell S. Reports of randomised control trials (RCTs) 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 Royal Soc Med 2024; 117: 212–216. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/reports-of-randomised-control-trials-rcts-should-begin-and-conclude-with-up-to-date-systematic-reviews-of-other-relevant-trials-a-25-year-audit-of-the-quality-of-trial-reports/ (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Chalmers I Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89.

Robinson KA Saldanha IJ McKoy NA. Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1325–1330.

Robinson KA Saldanha IJ McKoy NA. Identification of research gaps from evidence-based guidelines: a pilot study in cystic fibrosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 247–252.

Chalmers I Nylenna M. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet 2014; 384: 1903–1904.

Lund H Brunnhuber K Juhl C , et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ 2016; 355: i5440.

Al-Shahi Salman R Beller E Kagan J , et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014; 383: 176–185.

Chalmers I Bracken MB Djulbegovic B , et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156-–165.

Chan AW Song F Vickers A , et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014; 383(9913): 257–266.

Glasziou P Altman DG Bossuyt P , et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014; 383: 267–276.

Ioannidis JP Greenland S Hlatky MA , et al Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383: 166–175.

Macleod MR Michie S Roberts I , et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014; 383: 101–104.

Lund H Juhl CB Norgaard B , et al Evidence-based research series-paper 2: using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129:158–166.

Lund H Juhl CB Norgaard B , et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 3: using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 167–171.

Andreasen J Norgaard B Draborg E , et al. Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science: a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. PLoS One 2022; 17: e0276955.

Draborg E Andreasen J Norgaard B , et al (2022). Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results: a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Syst Rev 2022; 11: 189.

Lund H Robinson KA Gjerland A , et al. Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review. Syst Rev 2022; 11: 241.

Norgaard B Draborg E Andreasen J , et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design – a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 145: 1–13. See https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/norgaard-b-draborg-e-andreasen-j-juhl-cb-yost-j-brunnhuber-k-robinson-ka-lund-h-2022/ (accessed 9 Mar 2026).

Emanuel EJ Wendler D Grady C (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701–2711.

Grady C (1998). Science in the service of healing. Hastings Center Report 28: 34–38.

Freedman B (1987) Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Ethics Human Res 1987; 9: 7–10.