How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? 

N.P.T. Innes (Lead / Corresponding author), F. Schwendicke, T. Lamont

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)
115 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)651-655
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Dental Journal
Volume220
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

Research
Point-of-Care Systems
Distillation
Administrative Personnel
Patient Care
Research Personnel
Guidelines
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Dentistry

Cite this

Innes, N.P.T. ; Schwendicke, F. ; Lamont, T. / How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? . In: British Dental Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 220, No. 12. pp. 651-655.
@article{982fb01bec284cc0ab8da668ecfc886c,
title = "How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? ",
abstract = "Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50{\%} of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Dentistry",
author = "N.P.T. Innes and F. Schwendicke and T. Lamont",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451",
language = "English",
volume = "220",
pages = "651--655",
journal = "British Dental Journal",
issn = "0007-0610",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? . / Innes, N.P.T. (Lead / Corresponding author); Schwendicke, F.; Lamont, T.

In: British Dental Journal, Vol. 220, No. 12, 24.06.2016, p. 651-655.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? 

AU - Innes, N.P.T.

AU - Schwendicke, F.

AU - Lamont, T.

PY - 2016/6/24

Y1 - 2016/6/24

N2 - Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).

AB - Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Dentistry

U2 - 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451

DO - 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451

M3 - Article

VL - 220

SP - 651

EP - 655

JO - British Dental Journal

JF - British Dental Journal

SN - 0007-0610

IS - 12

ER -