15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A novel approach to sharing all available information from funded health research: the NIHR Journals Library

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Relevant information on health research must be made publicly available in an accurate, timely and accessible manner if evidence is to inform practice and benefit patient care. Failure to publish research information represents a significant waste of research funds. However, recent studies have demonstrated that non-publication and selective or biased reporting remains a significant problem. The role of online publications in rectifying these issues by providing open access to study information is increasingly recognised.

          Objective

          This paper details a novel approach to publishing research information developed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a major funder of health research in the United Kingdom. The NIHR has enhanced its Journals Library ( www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk), providing an online repository of information from research funded through five programmes. We describe how the NIHR Journals Library provides a ‘thread’ of relevant information for each study, including protocols, participant information sheets, data linkages, final reports, publications and diverse knowledge products. We also discuss the Library as a ‘living’ resource, one that is updated as each study progresses from inception to completion. Finally, we consider the implications of the Library for the NIHR, other journals and research teams submitting information.

          Conclusion

          Openly publishing information from funded research in the NIHR Journals Library serves as a model of knowledge sharing, maximising return on investment and enhancing the usability and replicability of research findings for different evidence-user communities. The Library also supports wider ‘research on research’ ambitions, enabling users to interrogate the repository of NIHR-funded studies, enhancing the understanding of research commissioning, design, dissemination and impact.

          Video abstract: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H03uxN_iTE.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0339-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

          As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals. To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes. MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors. For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form. Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23). Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Open access: The true cost of science publishing.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                d.wright@soton.ac.uk
                elaine.williams@nihr.ac.uk
                c.bryce@soton.ac.uk
                a.c.le-may@soton.ac.uk
                ken.stein@exeter.ac.uk
                r.milne@soton.ac.uk
                t.walley@liverpool.ac.uk
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                31 July 2018
                31 July 2018
                2018
                : 16
                : 70
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, GRID grid.5491.9, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, , University of Southampton, ; Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS United Kingdom
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, GRID grid.5491.9, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, ; University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, University of Exeter Medical School, ; St Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU United Kingdom
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, GRID grid.10025.36, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, L69 3BX, United Kingdom
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4857-5084
                Article
                339
                10.1186/s12961-018-0339-4
                6069813
                30064444
                14af736c-afca-44fb-9616-a9e3718a35e6
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 14 March 2018
                : 12 June 2018
                Categories
                Opinion
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                publishing,information dissemination,evidence-based practice
                Health & Social care
                publishing, information dissemination, evidence-based practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article