Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Torben V Schroeder, Jan 21, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
95 Views
  • Source
    • "made the registration of clinical trials before they are con - ducted a requirement for publication in the associated journals ( Laine et al . , 2007 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The promise of evidence-based management (EBMgt) is that educators and practitioners can access cumulative scientific information to guide their teaching and decision making. We argue that the EBMgt movement may be unable to live up to this promise to the extent that our cumulative scientific knowledge is not trustworthy. We review why the management discipline may not have trustworthy evidence and how this widens the divide among educators, practitioners, and researchers. Next, we review the implications of untrustworthy cumulative knowledge, focusing on how educators can critically assess evidence and teach this process in the classroom. We close with recommendations for improving the trustworthiness of our literature to enhance teaching and practice from an evidence-based perspective. Suggestions include increasing the reproducibility and replication of primary studies, changing the editorial review process, and focusing on the production and dissemination of practically relevant and actionable knowledge.
    Academy of Management Learning and Education, The 09/2014; 13(3):446-466. DOI:10.5465/amle.2013.0193 · 4.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In some cases, discrepancies between registered and published PO raise questions about selective outcome and/or analysis reporting and may indicate neglect of the ethical responsibility to fully disclose trial results to both participants and society at large [8] [16] [22] [40] (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/back- ground). However, such discrepancies may also reflect a need to update ClinicalTrials.gov "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POSs; i.e., definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POSs. Trials with accompanying publications (n=87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of 12/1/2011. POSs never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish POs). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (e.g., omitting a registered primary outcome [PO] from the publication, "demoting" a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration, or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (e.g., failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (e.g., registering imprecise POs ["pain"], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed.
    Pain 08/2013; 154(12). DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.011 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "To certify that an individual study is eligible for inclusion in the PMA there should be evidence to support the claim that, at the time of the agreement to be part of the PMA, trial results were not known outside the trial's own data monitoring committee. This should ideally be in the form of evidence that the trial was prospectively registered (Laine 2007). It is also advisable for the collaborative group to obtain an explicit (and signed) agreement from each of the trial groups to collaborate. "
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series, 09/2008: pages 559 - 570; , ISBN: 9780470712184
Show more