Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. The scandal of poor...
  3. The scandal of poor medical research
Editorials

The scandal of poor medical research

BMJ 1994; 308 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283 (Published 29 January 1994) Cite this as: BMJ 1994;308:283

Linked Opinion

Richard Smith: Medical research—still a scandal

Related articles

See more

Cited by...

  • A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration
  • What next for gastroenterology and hepatology trainee networks? Lessons from our surgical colleagues
  • Correspondence on 'Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study
  • Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice
  • Characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: cross-sectional analysis
  • Observational data during the COVID-19 pandemic: opportunity with uncertainty
  • Statement on methods in sport injury research from the 1st METHODS MATTER Meeting, Copenhagen, 2019
  • How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges intended research curricula
  • Should this systematic review and meta-analysis change my practice? Part 1: exploring treatment effect and trustworthiness
  • Evidence maps: a tool to guide research agenda setting
  • Inadequate Reporting of Analytical Characteristics of Biomarkers Used in Clinical Research: A Threat to Interpretation and Replication of Study Findings
  • Ophthalmic statistics note 13: method agreement studies in ophthalmology--please dont carry on correlating...
  • Planning a future randomized clinical trial based on a network of relevant past trials
  • A scholarship to foster future leaders in evidence based medicine
  • Research waste is still a scandal--an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers
  • Welcome to BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Ten essential papers for the practice of evidence-based medicine
  • Next-generation systematic reviews: prospective meta-analysis, individual-level data, networks and umbrella reviews
  • Slow down to strengthen sport and exercise medicine research
  • Ophthalmic statistics note 10: data transformations
  • "Publish or perish" is good for African research
  • Twenty top papers--the ones that got away and the results of the top six poll
  • Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review
  • The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change
  • Modeling and Research on Research
  • The pioneers of transparency
  • A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: Reviews of research
  • Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials
  • Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial
  • What are we reading now? An update on the papers published in the orthodontic literature (1999-2008)
  • Inadequate post-publication review of medical research
  • CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
  • Multivariable Models in Biobehavioral Research
  • Research methods and reporting
  • Statistical Power of Negative Randomized Controlled Trials Presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings
  • Updated Methods for Reporting Clinical Trials
  • Publication Policy or Publication Bias?
  • The scandal of unfair behaviour of senior faculty
  • The scandal of poor epidemiological research
  • Application of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the Fracture Care Literature
  • Do patients with osteoarthritis get the clinical research they need?
  • Same information, different decisions: format counts
  • Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
  • How to read a paper : getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)
  • Causality, menopause, and depression: a critical review of the literature
  • Whose data are they anyway?
  • Commentary: Prognostic models: clinically useful or quickly forgotten?
  • Their lordships on medical research
  • Promoting cost effective prescribing
  • Young people and drug misuse
  • Sexual health education interventions for young people: a methodological review
  • Towards a knowledge based health service
  • Promoting research into peer review
  • The role of letters in reviewing research
  • Increasing the accessibility of data
  • The scandal of poor medical research
  • Dietary treatment of hyperlipidaemia Diets were poorly evaluated
  • Standards in medical research Criticism unjustified and unfair
  • The scandal of poor medical research: Sloppy use of literature often to blame
Back to top