Priorities for research and other stories . . .BMJ 2015; 351 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3613 (Published 09 July 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;351:h3613
Most clinical research fails to deal with important clinical questions. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) was set up by Iain Chalmers and others more than 10 years ago to help rectify this by bringing patients and working clinicians into dialogue about research priorities. It has worked wonderfully well and is a model for the world. But an analysis of its inputs shows that although JLA priority setting partnerships mentioned drugs in only 18% of prioritised proposals, in registered non-commercial trials drugs accounted for 37% of the treatments mentioned; and in registered commercial trials drugs accounted for 86% (Research Involvement and Engagement 2015, doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x).
It’s 100 years since Ernest Codman proposed that surgeons should subject their results to detailed and honest appraisal, much to the alarm of his Boston colleagues. He would have been enthusiastic about laparoscopic video recording, which showed error events in two thirds of 54 …
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial