Re: Evidence Based Research (EBR)Sites

Options
sas-schatzi
sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
edited July 2018 in Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results

For those of us that like to search, we tend to have a favorite sites to find information. I thought it might be nice to list them for those folks that are new to searching. I'll list a few of my favs with links. I hope that others will add theirs too.

1. MEDSCAPE: Free, best if you register, covers the full range of specialties. Abstracts and Full studies. Usually has an article reviewing the studies. I like this approach very much. The review article can demystify a very technical study. The review article is done by a professional, and the interpretation I have found to be trustworthy versus some semi or non professional working for a paper.

http://www.medscape.com/

2. PLOS ONE (originally PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. Free. Can register , but not necessary.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information

3. PubMed (pubmed.gov) is a free resource developed and maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine® (NLM).

4. MEDLINE is NLM's bibliographic database of citations and abstracts, currently from more than 5,600 biomedical journals published in the United States and worldwide. Coverage extends back to 1946.

MEDLINE

5. DailyMed is a website operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels (also called a "package insert") to health care providers and the general public. The contents of DailyMed is provided and updated daily by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA in turn collects this information from the pharmaceutical industry.

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

This is a start.

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited September 2015

    UpToDate subscription service. Information is current to present time. Designed for docs to be able to access current up to date info sitting with the patient. Has several levels of subscription. It has a "patient or caregiver" level of subscription. Expensive even for "patient or caregiver" . Everything is relative though. If you need a rapid search done that you can depend on this may have value. I found it 9/2/2015. Had exactly what I needed for the search I was doing. Pondering paying...........but I'm cheap. Difficult choice. They let me read before I was blocked. Such a tease.

    http://www.uptodate.com/home/why-uptodate


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Loveroflife
    Loveroflife Member Posts: 5,563
    edited September 2015

    $500 for a year subscription...yikes! I'm cheap too

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Loveroflife
    Loveroflife Member Posts: 5,563
    edited September 2015

    Thank you again for gathering infos and now references despite having a full plate yourself. Love you

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited September 2015

    LOve you too Loverly :). For the patient or caregiver on the UpToDate site, they're is a day rate and a month rate. Only remember the month rate 44.95$. But the above in the topic box are all free :)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited September 2015

    ClinicalTrials.gov

    A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health

    ClinicalTrials.gov is a registry and results database of publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants conducted around the world. Learn more About Clinical Studies and About This Site, including relevant History, Policies, and Laws.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited September 2015

    Ohh Thanks kayb. Knew you'd be here :)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited February 2016

    This is a repost. The link is an excellent tutorial on how to evaluate BIAS


    Aug 23, 2015 01:15PM , edited Aug 23, 2015 01:37PM by sas-schatzi

    In many posts here and elsewhere, I have referred to bias. Bias is the bane of research. When a study is completed and it is submitted to a journal for consideration of publication, the journal assigns (asks) professionals i.e peers in the field to review the study. The choice of the reviewer is made by level of expertise regarding that subject. The belief being that if they're is an error the knowledgeable reviewer will recognize it. The reviewer task is to look at all sections of the study for accuracy. Generally, several or more reviewers are assigned to evaluate a study. This reflects back to what I said earlier re: the internet and the explosion of information. The controls of publishing studies only after serious peer review have been weakened. Plus, people that wish to skip scientific review have learned how to do this, and publish on the internet. Making their subjects appear to fit the rules of scientific review.

    I'm happier now. I presented this better than I did before. The original thought for this post, was to find a working definition of bias that we could use. In this case, I love the internet LOL. I located a tutorial about bias that is mostly user friendly. Takes about 20 minutes to get through. Not that I expect any of us to become perfect about detecting bias, but I do believe we will be more questioning of what we are reading. It will, also, help when comparing several studies at one time.

    One of the things I do, is read the objective(opening paragraph) and the conclusion of a study, or the abstract first. This allows me to focus on the key points within the study that the authors used to come to their conclusion. I find that it helps me detect bias within the study orbetween study results that don't jive with the conclusion. Hope this helps :)

    http://familymed.uthscsa.edu/facultydevelopment/elearning/biasinresearch.htm

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited October 2015

    Bump

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • grammakathy
    grammakathy Member Posts: 407
    edited October 2015

    Somehow I missed this the first time - thank you for developing this topic!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited October 2015

    Glad you found this Grammy. Miss you on IT. :) Please, add any goodies that you use to search :)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited November 2015

    Bump please, if you have any goodies to add for researching they would be much appreciated :)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited December 2015

    Bump

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited January 2016

    Dr. Susan Love's Research Foundation.

    http://www.drsusanloveresearch.org/


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mettasun
    mettasun Member Posts: 18
    edited January 2016

    Hi sas-schatzi, thanks for putting these resources together. Another one is cochrane.org

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited February 2016

    meta made it hot http://www.cochrane.org/evidence


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited March 2016

    Bump

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited June 2016

    Bump


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited August 2016

    Bump

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited May 2017

    Bump

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited August 2017

    ump


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited October 2017

    bump


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited November 2017

    Well, this isn't encouraging. This article refers to a wide array of problems with research in this present time.

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-25-sensationalized-science-new-study-suggests-more-than-a-quarter-of-scientific-papers-spin-results.html

    This is the study on which the article is based.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173

    'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review

    • Kellia Chiu, Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft Affiliation Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ⨯
    • Quinn Grundy, Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft Affiliation Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ⨯
    • Lisa Bero Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing * E-mail: lisa.bero@sydney.edu.auAffiliation Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1893-6651 ⨯

    'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review

    • Kellia Chiu,
    • Quinn Grundy,
    • Lisa Bero

    PLOS

    x


    Abstract

    In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers' decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research.



    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited November 2017

    The other day I did a look at harmonic scalpels on another thread, this is a repost from that thread

    https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/26/topics/857219?page=3#post_5090794

    "I'm such a nerd. I woke up thinking about the Harmonic scalpel study of a few days ago. This was 4am. It's bothered me that the study had such positive results from a paper who's writers were from China(2015). and less positive results of two papers whose authors were based in Australia & Italy (both 2016). This was a puzzle.

    The 4 am thought "Where are the harmonic scalpels manufactured?" Ducked (like google) " Who manufactures harmonic scalpels?". This brought up Alibaba. I looked at the first 3 pages. All the manufacturers were from China. Approximately twenty two listed that either produced the base unit or supplies for the base unit. After that other manufactures were listed, but I stopped at that point.

    https://www.alibaba.com/harmonic-scalpel-suppliers_1.html?spm=a2700.9099375.16.5.56242203ldzAkP

    As some recreational reading after that, I came across a study and an article on "Spin" in research papers. It's not encouraging. 8 of 10 papers published can be shown to have some spin on the results. The study listed multiple reasons for this. One being that studies were paid for by the producer of the product or drug. They are suppose to declare this, but the article about the study found that this is not always done.

    I'm inclined to say that there was bias in the China study as they have the largest manufactures of harmonic scalpels in the world. It would take a great deal of detective work to uncover if this were true. But it looks awfully suspicious.

    I put the "spin" study on the evidence based research thread"

    https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/73/topics/834695?page=1#post_5090782

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sas-schatzi
    sas-schatzi Member Posts: 19,603
    edited July 2018

    bump for junie

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories