Guiding Principles

This is important because if the research, questions and outcomes are not relevant to the intended users (e.g. the next researchers in the translational pathway, patients, clinicians, public health policy makers) research cannot have impact. Involvement of patients and the public in priority setting is also important for accountability and democracy, particularly when it is government funded research.

This is important because new research not set in the context of what is already known leads to unnecessary duplication, studies that cannot change decision making (e.g. will not change the meta analysis), or inappropriate design (e.g. inappropriate outcome measures, incorrect prevalence assumptions, failure to learn from past previous studies).

This is important because evidence based advances in methodology can lead to more efficient study delivery or lower the risk of biased results. Poorly designed studies can lead to mistrust in the results (and can discredit the value of the research). Biased studies can lead to incorrect results that may produce harm if implemented in evidence-based decision making. This has major implications for policy but also the public.

This is important because failure to actively manage research delivery can lead to incomplete, delayed or low GRADE quality studies. Over-management and over-regulation can lead to bureaucracy and inefficiencies.

Registration is important to prevent unintentional duplication and provide an audit trail for future accountability (e.g. to identify non-publication, no results published,  intended and actual outcomes do not match). Funders are able to influence by requiring registration as a condition of funding and to impose consequences if researchers do not comply.

This is important because publicly releasing full analytical methods and plans allows for their re-use in other studies, in designing complementary studies and for preserving the experimental method (e.g. prevent outcome measure swapping, fishing expeditions during data analysis etc).  The transparency and accountability of publicly documenting protocol and statistical plans safeguards against intentional or unintentional influences due to conflicts of interest that can distort scientific integrity.

This is important because making all methods and all findings publicly available allows results to be acted upon and fully understood. This in turn prevents publication bias affecting systematic reviews. It is also a matter of public accountability; those that pay for research through taxes or philanthropic donation have the right to know what that money has been spent on.  Learning from studies that failed to complete is also important so that future funds are not wasted on the same research. Increasingly there is an emphasis on timely reporting of summary results, at least, to accomplish these important aims.

This is important because re-use of data increases the impact resulting from the initial financial, research infrastructure, and research participants’ investments needed to collect data. Re-analysis increases independence and confidence in results. Replication of studies reduces bias.

This is important because decisions, whether or not they are to further research or affect health or public health policy, they should be made on reviews of bodies of evidence, and not on a single study results. This helps to reduce bias and spin.

This is important because research findings can only be acted on if appropriately and effectively disseminated. This has to be targeted at the intended user of the evidence – often this will not be the academic community. Despite best efforts, not every new research study adds enough substance to the body of evidence to warrant active dissemination and implementation support.