Nature: China paper explosion, but impure motives detrimental to the prestige-research papers-IT information
The paper for easy reading, cut it.
Internationally renowned meta analysis of research scholar, Stanford University Professor John Ioannidis said in a recent paper, the gold standard of scientific literature analysis really suffered from tarnished. He is saying, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are important tools for evidence-based medicine, but now is viewed by many as a means of irrigation paper that would undermine the credibility of such a study, should pay more attention to proposed ways to solve the problem.
Health policy makers, physicians and patients in decision-making must be based on quality information. But in the face of a large number of medical and health information is often difficult to choose. Because most of the information there is more or less the problem, or even an error message. Because of global health information change rapidly, subject to conditions such as time, energy, and retrieving skills, lots of valuable information buried waste. RCT taken strict measures to control bias, reliability is often higher than that of other test methods, but subject to environmental conditions, many RCT too small will not help to overcome the effects of randomness, or focus on a specific issue, resulting in availability limited. Before evaluation of the production system, advance design research programmes, fully considered how the entire process to reduce bias, how to evaluate research quality, how to collect and consolidate information.
(Subject content from the network, some modifications according to understand. ）
A systematic review and meta-analysis was published in the literature evaluation for a specific topic, this topic is usually for medication and treatment effect analysis is a key tool for evidence-based medicine.
However, according to Professor John Ioannidis's research, now there is malicious mass production of unnecessary conflict misleading system evaluations and meta-analysis, this reference value was diluted. Ioannidis, Professor article just published in The Milbank Quarterly, articles on quantitative analysis of this issue. He said that documents the importance of greater harm, the greater the error occurred, such important documents there are a lot of errors that need attention.
Worthy of attention is that the meta-analysis of literature mainly came from Asian countries. In 2014, for example meta analysis of 63% gene-related research from China, most of which belong to the category of false positives. This data let embarrassment while the high is our ability to write such an article? Is the power of us to write this article? Or are we writing this article the market operation mechanism?
Brown University bio-Statistician, Christopher Schmid is responsible for dealing with the United States journal of Nephrology a meta-analysis of documents. Schmid argues that this increase in articles published academic papers is the cause of increasing pressure. About 10 years ago, he noticed more and more such articles from Asia. Start these articles quality is not too good, but great progress now. One reason for this could be data gets bigger improvements in the way.
Ioannidis believes that one purpose of these articles is to add to the article citations, and even some corporate marketing tool. For example, the use of statin prevention study on arrhythmia after cardiac surgery, seven years is referenced by meta-analysis of 21 articles. Another 185 antidepressant research papers about one-third of authors employed by the same drug companies. Ioannidis said, such as titles and commercial papers would undermine the reputation of biomedical papers. Most of these articles are published in respected journals, and is referenced by other articles.
《自然》：中国论文数量爆增，然动机不纯有损声望 - 学术论文 - IT资讯
本文为方便用户阅读，有所删减。
国际著名meta分析研究学者，斯坦福大学教授John Ioannidis在最近一篇论文中表示，科学文献分析的黄金标准真正遭受玷污。他的意思是说，荟萃分析和系统性评论本来是循证医学的重要工具，但现在被许多人作为灌水论文的手段，会危害这种研究的可信度，应该引起高度重视，提出解决问题的办法。
卫生政策决策者、医师和患者在决策时必须以高质量信息为依据。但面对大量医疗卫生信息时常难选择。因为多数信息都存在或多或少的问题，有的甚至是错误信息。另外由于全球医疗卫生信息更新极快，受时间、精力及检索技能等条件限制，大量有价值的信息被埋没浪费。RCT严格采取了控制偏倚的措施，可靠性通常较其他试验方法高，但受环境条件限制，很多RCT样本量太小，不能有效克服随机性的影响，或只专注于某特定问题，导致实用性受限。制作系统评价前，需预先设计研究方案，充分考虑如何全程减少偏倚，怎样评价相关研究质量，怎样收集和合并资料等。
（主题内容来自网络，作者根据理解进行了部分修改。）
系统评价和荟萃分析都是对已经发表文献中特定主题进行的综合评价，这种主题通常是对药物和治疗手段进行效果分析，是循证医学的关键工具。
但是根据John Ioannidis教授的研究，现在存在恶意大规模生产不必要的相互冲突的误导性系统评价和荟萃分析，导致这种文献的价值被稀释。Ioannidis教授的文章刚刚发表在The Milbank Quarterly，文章对这种问题进行量化分析。他说，文献的重要性越大，发生错误的危害性越大，这种重要文献大量存在错误需要引起重视。
值得重视的是，这些荟萃分析类文献主要来自亚洲国家。例如2014年有63%的基因相关荟萃分析研究来自中国，其中大多数属于假阳性的范畴。这样的数据让我们尴尬万分，是我们写这类文章的能力高？是我们写这种文章的动力大？还是我们写这种文章的市场操作机制优势？
布朗大学生物统计学家Christopher Schmid负责处理《美国肾脏病杂志》的荟萃分析类稿件。Schmid教授认为，这种文章的增加的原因是学者论文发表压力的越来越大。大约10年前，他就注意到来自亚洲的这类稿件越来越多。开始这些稿件质量不太好，但是现在进步很大。其中一个原因可能是数据获取的途径有了比较大的改善。
Ioannidis认为，这些文章的一个目的是为了增加文章引用量，这甚至成为某些企业的营销工具。例如，使用他汀类药物预防心脏手术后心律失常的研究，七年来被21篇荟萃分析引用。另外185篇抗抑郁药物研究论文中，大约三分之一的作者受雇于同一个药商。Ioannidis说，这类为职称和为商业目的的论文会破坏生物医学论文的声望。这些文章多数发表在受人尊敬的期刊上，也会被其他文章引用。
