Kirsch, I, Deacon, BJ, Huedo-Medina, TB, Scoboria, A, Moore, TJ, Johnson, BT. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: A meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 2008; 5(2):e45. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Food and Drug Administration. Depression medicines. 2019. www.fda.gov/consumers/womens-health-topics/depression-medicines.Google Scholar

Porzsolt, F, Wiedemann, F, Phlippen, M, et al. The terminology conflict on efficacy and effectiveness in healthcare. J Comp Eff Res. 2020; 9(17):1171–1178. doi:10.2217/cer-2020-0149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mayo, NE, Ow, N, Asano, M, et al. Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: Optimally framing the research question. Qual Life Res. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11136-022-03117-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Borgerson, K. Are explanatory trials ethical? Shifting the burden of justification in clinical trial design. Theor Med Bioeth. 2013; 34(4):293–308. doi:10.1007/s11017-013-9262-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Friedman, LM, DeMets, DL, Furberg, CD, Granger, CB, Reboussin, DM. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 5th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szucs, D, Ioannidis, JPA. When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: A reassessment. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017; 11:390. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Khan, MS, Lateef, N, Siddiqi, TJ, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2(5):e192622–e192622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Freedman, B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: A proposed explication. IRB. 1987; 9(6):7–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Irvin, VL. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PloS One. 2015; 10(8):e0132382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Guyatt, G, Rennie, D, Meade, M, Cook, D, American Medical Association. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. ed. JAMAevidence. McGraw-Hill Education Medical; 2015.Google Scholar

Hulley, SB. Designing Clinical Research. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.Google Scholar

Potochnik, A. Awareness of our biases is essential to good science. Scientific American. 2020. www.scientificamerican.com/article/awareness-of-our-biases-is-essential-to-good-science/.Google Scholar

Elliott, KC. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahn, CR. Picking a research problem. The critical decision. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330(21):1530–1533. doi:10.1056/NEJM199405263302113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holland, JL. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. Psychological Assessment Resources; 1997.Google Scholar

Schwartz, SH, Bilsky, W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987; 53(3):550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casadevall, A, Fang, FC. Specialized science. Infect Immun. 2014; 82(4):1355–1360. doi:10.1128/IAI.01530-13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Luty, J, Arokiadass, SM, Easow, JM, Anapreddy, JR. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35(3):200–202. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.026740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I, Musgrave, A. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Its Proceedings. University Press; 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DuBois, JM, Antes, AL. Five dimensions of research ethics: A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Acad Med. 2018; 93(4):550–555. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sobell, MB, Sobell, LC. Second year treatment outcome of alcoholics treated by individualized behavior therapy: Results. Behav Res Ther. 1976; 14(3):195–215. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(76)90013-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sobell, MB, Sobell, LC. Individualized behavior therapy for alcoholics – republished article. Behav Ther. 2016; 47(6):937–949. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pendery, ML, Maltzman, IM, West, LJ. Controlled drinking by alcoholics? New findings and a reevaluation of a major affirmative study. Science. 1982; 217(4555):169–175. doi:10.1126/science.7089552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norman, C. No fraud found in alcoholism study. Science. 1982; 218(4574):771. doi:10.1126/science.7134972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marlatt, GA. The controlled-drinking controversy. A commentary. Am Psychol. 1983; 38(10):1097–1110. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.38.10.1097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Paradis, C, Butt, P, Shield, K, et al. Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report. 2023. www.ccsa.ca/canadas-guidance-alcohol-and-health-final-report.Google Scholar

Mezue, K, Osborne, MT, Abohashem, S, et al. Reduced stress-related neural network activity mediates the effect of alcohol on cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023; 81(24):2315–2325. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Devendorf, AR. Is “me-search” a kiss of death in mental health research? Psychol Serv. 2022; 19(1):49–54. doi:10.1037/ser0000507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchanan, NT, Perez, M, Prinstein, MJ, Thurston, IB. Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. Am Psychol. 2021; 76(7):1097–1112. doi:10.1037/amp0000905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ayoub, P, Rose, D. Defense of “Me” Studies. Inside Higher Education. 2016. April 14, 2016. www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/04/14/scholarly-importance-studying-issues-related-ones-own-identity-essay.Google Scholar

American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code.Google Scholar

Altenmüller, MS, Lange, LL, Gollwitzer, M. When research is me-search: How researchers’ motivation to pursue a topic affects laypeople’s trust in science. PLoS One. 2021; 16(7):e0253911. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rios, K, Roth, ZC. Is “me-search” necessarily less rigorous research? Social and personality psychologists’ stereotypes of the psychology of religion. Self Identity. 2020; 19(7):825–840. doi:10.1080/15298868.2019.1690035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lilford, RJ, Jackson, J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995; 88(10):552–559.Google ScholarPubMed

Freedman, B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(3):141–115. doi:10.1056/NEJM198707163170304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lilford, RJ, Jackson, J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995; 88(10):552.Google ScholarPubMed

National Science Foundation. Broader impacts. https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/broader-impacts.Google Scholar

United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. DHEW Publication no (OS) 78-0012. The Commission; U.S. Govt. Print. Off.; 1978.Google Scholar

Berling, E, McLeskey, C, O’Rourke, M, Pennock, RT. A new method for a virtue-based responsible conduct of research curriculum: Pilot test results. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 25(3):899–910. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9991-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pennock, RT, O’Rourke, M. Developing a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 23(1):243–262. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9757-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Collins, SE, Clifasefi, SL, Stanton, J, et al. Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. Am Psychol. 2018; 73(7):884–898. doi:10.1037/amp0000167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Breault, LJ, Rittenbach, K, Hartle, K, et al. The top research questions asked by people with lived depression experience in Alberta: A survey. CMAJ Open. 2018; 6(3):E398–E405. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20180034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vaughan, L, Espeland, MA, Snively, B, et al. The rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y). Brain Res. 2013; 1514:3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yetley, EA, MacFarlane, AJ, Greene-Finestone, LS, et al. Options for basing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) on chronic disease endpoints: Report from a joint US-/Canadian-sponsored working group. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017; 105(1):249S–285S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moberg, CA, Humphreys, K. Exclusion criteria in treatment research on alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use disorders: A review and critical analysis. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017; 36(3):378–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Campbell, DT, Stanley, JC. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Ravenio Books; 2015.Google Scholar

Chambers, DA, Glasgow, RE, Stange, KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013; 8(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shen, C, Ferro, EG, Xu, H, Kramer, DB, Patell, R, Kazi, DS. Underperformance of contemporary phase III oncology trials and strategies for improvement. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021; 1(aop):1–7.Google Scholar

Fojo, T, Mailankody, S, Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics – the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: The John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 140(12):1225–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walia, A, Tuia, J, Prasad, V. Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: Improved reporting is needed. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023; 20(12):885–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shen, C, Ferro, EG, Xu, H, Kramer, DB, Patell, R, Kazi, DS. Underperformance of contemporary phase III oncology trials and strategies for improvement. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021; 19(9):1072–1078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Irvin, VL. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS One. 2015; 10(8):e0132382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haug, N, Deischinger, C, Gyimesi, M, Kautzky-Willer, A, Thurner, S, Klimek, P. High-risk multimorbidity patterns on the road to cardiovascular mortality. BMC Med. 2020; 18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Green, LA, Fryer, Jr GE, Yawn, BP, Lanier, D, Dovey, SM. The ecology of medical care revisited. Mass Med Soc. 2001; 344(26):2021–2025.Google ScholarPubMed

Leinonen, A, Koponen, M, Hartikainen, S. Systematic review: Representativeness of participants in RCTs of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5):e0124500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anderson, TS, Ayanian, JZ, Souza, J, Landon, BE. Representativeness of participants eligible to be enrolled in clinical trials of aducanumab for Alzheimer disease compared with Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment. JAMA. 2021; 326(16):1627–1629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cherubini, A, Oristrell, J, Pla, X, et al. The persistent exclusion of older patients from ongoing clinical trials regarding heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(6):550–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. Diseases, Diagnoses, and Dollars. Springer; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bress, AP, Tanner, RM, Hess, R, Colantonio, LD, Shimbo, D, Muntner, P. Generalizability of SPRINT results to the US adult population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(5):463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tan, YY, Papez, V, Chang, WH, Mueller, SH, Denaxas, S, Lai, AG. Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: An external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022; 3(10):e674–e689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pant, S, Lee, MS. Barriers to pancreatic cancer clinical trials enrollment. Oncology (Williston Park, NY). 2020; 34(10).Google Scholar

Kalbaugh, CA, Kalbaugh, JM, McManus, L, Fisher, JA. Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time. PLoS One. 2021; 16(9):e0256994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Abramson, JD. Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care and How We Can Repair It. Mariner Books; 2022.Google Scholar

Kirsch, I. The emperor’s new drugs: Medication and placebo in the treatment of depression. Placebo. 2014:291–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kirsch, I. Antidepressants and the placebo effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2014; 222(3):128–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Locher, C, Koechlin, H, Zion, SR, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and placebo for common psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017; 74(10):1011–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Enck, P, Klosterhalfen, S. Placebos and the placebo effect in drug trials. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2019; 260:399–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

von Wernsdorff, M, Loef, M, Tuschen-Caffier, B, Schmidt, S. Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):1–14.Google ScholarPubMed

Schwartz, LM, Woloshin, S, Lu, Z, et al. Randomized study of providing evidence context to mitigate physician misinterpretation arising from off-label drug promotion. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019; 12(11):e006073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nicholls, SJ, Lincoff, AM, Garcia, M, et al. Effect of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids vs corn oil on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk: The STRENGTH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020; 324(22):2268–2280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Webster, RK, Howick, J, Hoffmann, T, et al. Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019; 49(11):e13169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demasi, M, Jefferson, T. What’s in the placebo? Trust the Evidence. 2023;(July 18, 2023).Google Scholar

Shader, RI. Placebos, active placebos, and clinical trials. Clin Ther. 2017; 39(3):451–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mohr, DC, Spring, B, Freedland, KE, et al. The selection and design of control conditions for randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions. Psychother Psychosom. 2009; 78(5):275–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Laursen, DR, Nejstgaard, CH, Bjørkedal, E, et al. Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomised trials: A systematic review of trials with both active placebo and standard placebo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 3(3):MR000055.Google ScholarPubMed

Toews, I, Anglemyer, A, Nyirenda, JLZ, et al. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: A meta‐epidemiological study. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 1:MR000034.Google ScholarPubMed

Freedman, D, Pisani, R, Purves, R. Statistics. 4th ed. WW Norton; 2004.Google Scholar

Kalton, G. Introduction to Survey Sampling. Sage Publications; 2020.Google Scholar

Lauer, MS. From hot hands to declining effects: The risks of small numbers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(1):72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneeweiss, S, Avorn, J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(4):323–337. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Budoff, MJ. Current Utility of the Coronary Calcium Score for the Initial Evaluation of Suspected Coronary Artery Disease. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society; 2023:659–660.Google ScholarPubMed

Budoff, MJ, Kinninger, A, Gransar, H, et al. When does a calcium score equates to secondary prevention?: Insights from the multinational CONFIRM registry. JACC: Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023; 16(9):1181–1189.Google ScholarPubMed

Eghtedari, B, Kinninger, A, Roy, SK, Budoff, MJ. Coronary artery calcium progression and all-cause mortality. Coron Artery Dis. 2023; 34(4):244–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Abuzaid, A, Saad, M, Addoumieh, A, et al. Coronary artery calcium score and risk of cardiovascular events without established coronary artery disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Coron Artery Dis. 2021; 32(4):317–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tripepi, G, Chesnaye, NC, Dekker, FW, Zoccali, C, Jager, KJ. Intention to treat and per protocol analysis in clinical trials. Nephrology. 2020; 25(7):513–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lindholt, JS, Søgaard, R, Rasmussen, LM, et al. Five-year outcomes of the Danish Cardiovascular Screening (DANCAVAS) trial. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(15):1385–1394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Golub, IS, Termeie, OG, Kristo, S, et al. Major global coronary artery calcium guidelines. Cardiovas Imaging. 2023; 16(1):98–117.Google ScholarPubMed

DeYoreo, M, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I, Knudsen, AB, Kuntz, KM, Zauber, AG, Rutter, CM. Validation of colorectal cancer models on long-term outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2020; 40(8):1034–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Buskermolen, M, Cenin, DR, Helsingen, LM, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: A microsimulation modelling study. BMJ. 2019; 36(7):l5383.Google Scholar

Zheng, S, Schrijvers, JJ, Greuter, MJ, Kats-Ugurlu, G, Lu, W, de Bock, GH. Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening on all-cause and CRC-specific mortality reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers. 2023; 15(7):1948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Amrhein, V, Greenland, S, McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019; 567(7748):305–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greenland, S. Valid p-values behave exactly as they should: Some misleading criticisms of p-values and their resolution with s-values. Am Stat. 2019; 73(sup1):106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rao, CR. RA Fisher: The founder of modern statistics. Stat Sci. 1992; 7(1):34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glassman, JR, Jauregui, A, Milstein, A, Kaplan, RM. Caring for people with depression: Costs among 43 million commercially insured patients with or without comorbid illnesses. Ann Behav Med. 2023; 57(5):380–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greenwald, AG, Gonzalez, R, Harris, RJ, Guthrie, D. Effect sizes and p values: What should be reported and what should be replicated? Psychophysiology. 1996; 33(2):175–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Willett, WC, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen therapy and cardiovascular disease. Ten-year follow-up from the nurses’ health study. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325(11):756–762. doi:10.1056/NEJM199109123251102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Prentice, RL, Langer, R, Stefanick, ML, et al. Combined postmenopausal hormone therapy and cardiovascular disease: Toward resolving the discrepancy between observational studies and the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial. Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162(5):404–414. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grodstein, F, Manson, JE, Stampfer, MJ. Postmenopausal hormone use and secondary prevention of coronary events in the nurses’ health study. a prospective, observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kyzas, PA, Denaxa-Kyza, D, Ioannidis, JP. Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43(17):2559–2579. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vul, E, Pashler, H. Voodoo and circularity errors. NeuroImage. 2012; 62(2):945–948. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kriegeskorte, N, Simmons, WK, Bellgowan, PS, Baker, CI. Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping. Nat Neurosci. 2009; 12(5):535–540. doi:10.1038/nn.2303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ioannidis, JP, Ntzani, EE, Trikalinos, TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis, DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. Nat Genet. 2001; 29(3):306–309. doi:10.1038/ng749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Begley, CG, Ellis, LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012; 483(7391):531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kho, AN, Pacheco, JA, Peissig, PL, et al. Electronic medical records for genetic research: Results of the eMERGE consortium. Sci Transl Med. 2011; 3(79):79re1. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lagu, T, Krumholz, HM, Dharmarajan, K, et al. Spending more, doing more, or both? An alternative method for quantifying utilization during hospitalizations. J Hosp Med. 2013; 8(7):373–379. doi:10.1002/jhm.2046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hersh, WR, Weiner, MG, Embi, PJ, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013; 51(8 Suppl 3):S30–S37. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1dbd.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Overhage, JM, Overhage, LM. Sensible use of observational clinical data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013; 22(1):7–13.doi:10.1177/0962280211403598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schroeder, SA. Shattuck Lecture. We can do better – improving the health of the American people. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. New Engl J Med. 2007; 357(12):1221–1228. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa073350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Council NR. Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains in Electronic Health Records: Phase 1. vol 1. The National Academies Press; 2014.Google Scholar

Estabrooks, PA, Boyle, M, Emmons, KM, et al. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: Supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19(4):575–582. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kilbourne, AM, Neumann, MS, Pincus, HA, Bauer, MS, Stall, R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: Application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. 2007; 2:42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Chambers, DA, Glasgow, RE. Big data and large sample size: A cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clin Transl Sci. 2014; 7(4):342–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jamieson, KH, McNutt, M, Kiermer, V, Sever, R. Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(39):19231–19236. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913039116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nosek, BA, Alter., G, Banks, GC, et al. SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015; 348(6242):1422–1425. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Zarin, DA, Califf, RM. Trial reporting and the clinical trials enterprise. JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181(8):1131–1132. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Trinquart, L, Dunn, AG, Bourgeois, FT. Registration of published randomized trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):173. doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1168-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Viergever, RF, Karam, G, Reis, A, Ghersi, D. The quality of registration of clinical trials: Still a problem. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1):e84727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DeVito, NJ, Goldacre, B. Evaluation of compliance with legal requirements under the FDA amendments act of 2007 for timely registration of clinical trials, data verification, delayed reporting, and trial document submission. JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181(8):1128–1130. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Zarin, DA, Tse, T, Williams, RJ, Rajakannan, T. Update on trial registration 11 years after the ICMJE policy was established. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(4):383–391. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1601330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kapp, P, Esmail, L, Ghosn, L, Ravaud, P, Boutron, I. Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):363. doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02567-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DeVito, NJ, Bacon, S, Goldacre, B. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort study. Lancet. 2020; 395(10221):361–369. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33220-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Williams, RJ, Tse, T, DiPiazza, K, Zarin, DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database: Evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5):e0127242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127242.Google ScholarPubMed

Maruani, A, Boutron, I, Baron, G, Ravaud, P. Impact of sending email reminders of the legal requirement for posting results on ClinicalTrials.gov: Cohort embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5579. doi:10.1136/bmj.g5579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schmaling, KB, Landon, HS, Nguyen, TB, Kaplan, RM. Transparency of results reporting for depression treatment studies in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022; 27(1):27–32. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schmaling, KB, Kaplan, RM. Depression trial results: A cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov. J Psychiatr Res. 2023; 161:461–466. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.04.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Food and Drug Administration. ClinicalTrials.gov – notices of noncompliance and civil money penalty actions. Accessed July 23, 2023. www.fda.gov/science-research/fdas-role-clinicaltrialsgov-information/clinicaltrialsgov-notices-noncompliance-and-civil-money-penalty-actions.Google Scholar

Johnson, AL, Fladie, I, Anderson, JM, Lewis, DM, Mons, BR, Vassar, M. Rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of head and neck cancer randomized clinical trials. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 146(2):176–182. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Adam, GP, Springs, S, Trikalinos, T, et al. Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):59. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dufka, FL, Dworkin, RH, Rowbotham, MC. How transparent are migraine clinical trials? Repository of Registered Migraine Trials (RReMiT). Neurology. 2014; 83(15):1372–1381. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jones, CW, Handler, L, Crowell, KE, Keil, LG, Weaver, MA, Platts-Mills, TF. Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: Cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2013; 347:f6104. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ross, JS, Mulvey, GK, Hines, EM, Nissen, SE, Krumholz, HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(9):e1000144. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Committee on Publication Ethics. Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Version 4. Accessed July 23, 2023. doi:10.24318/cope.2019.1.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanelli, D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012; 90(3):891–904. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dwan, K, Gamble, C, Williamson, PR, Kirkham, JJ, Group, RB. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hartung, DM, Zarin, DA, Guise, JM, McDonagh, M, Paynter, R, Helfand, M. Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160(7):477–483. doi:10.7326/M13-0480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Riveros, C, Dechartres, A, Perrodeau, E, Haneef, R, Boutron, I, Ravaud, P. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(12):e1001566; discussion e1001566. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tang, E, Ravaud, P, Riveros, C, Perrodeau, E, Dechartres, A. Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med. 2015; 13:189. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0430-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Malicki, M, Jeroncic, A, Ter Riet, G, et al. Preprint servers’ policies, submission requirements, and transparency in reporting and research integrity recommendations. JAMA. 2020; 324(18):1901–1903. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Abdill, RJ, Blekhman, R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. Elife. 2019; 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.45133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Teunis, T, Nota, SP, Schwab, JH. Do corresponding authors take responsibility for their work? A covert survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(2):729–735. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3868-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wang, SV, Sreedhara, SK, Schneeweiss, S, Initiative, R. Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions. Nat Commun. 2022; 13(1):5126. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32310-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Savage, CJ, Vickers, AJ. Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PLoS One. 2009; 4(9):e7078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bello, S, Moustgaard, H, Hróbjartsson, A. Unreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 81:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Avorn, J, Kesselheim, AS. The 21st Century Cures Act – Will it take us back in time? N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(26):2473–2475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Koong, AJ, Irvin, V. Food and Drug Administration novel drug decisions in 2017: Transparency and disclosure prior to and 5 years following approval. Health Affairs Scholar. 2023; 1(2):qxad028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Koong, AJ, Irvin, V. Review of evidence supporting 2022 US food and drug administration drug approvals. JAMA Network Open. 2023; 6(8):e2327650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Koong, AJ, Irvin, V. Public comment on proposed FDA policy, “Demonstrating Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness with One Adequate and Well-Controlled Clinical Investigation and Confirmatory Evidence: Guidance to Industry.” 2019.Google Scholar

Nutu, D, Gentili, C, Naudet, F, Cristea, IA. Open science practices in clinical psychology journals: An audit study. J Abnorm Psychol. 2019; 128(6):510–516. doi:10.1037/abn0000414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ioannidis, JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mansmann, U, Locher, C, Prasser, F, et al. Implementing clinical trial data sharing requires training a new generation of biomedical researchers. Nat Med. 2023. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-02080-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016; 3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.Google Scholar

Naudet, F, Siebert, M, Pellen, C, et al. Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: Ripe for improvement. PLoS Med. 2021; 18(10):e1003844. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

EQUATOR: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research. Accessed July 23, 2023. www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/.Google Scholar

Butcher, NJ, Monsour, A, Mew, EJ, et al. Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. JAMA. 2022; 328(22):2252–2264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

44. Tobin, K, Davey-Rothwell, MA, Nonyane, BAS, et al. RCT of an integrated CBT-HIV intervention on depressive symptoms and HIV risk. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0187180. doi:10.1371/journal.pome.0187180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Blanco, D, Biggane, AM, Cobo, E, network M. Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers? Trials. 2018; 19(1):80. doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2475-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McKeown, A, Gewandter, JS, McDermott, MP, et al. Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review. J Pain. 2015; 16(3):199–206.e1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nunan, D, Watts, I, Kaji, FA, Hansjee, S, Heneghan, C. Adherence in leading medical journals to the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting of binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials: Cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022; 27(2):120–124. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chan, AW, Tetzlaff, JM, Gøtzsche, PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013; 346:e7586. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Augustovski, F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: Updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022; 376:e067975. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067975.Google ScholarPubMed

Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, et al. STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015; 351:h5527. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527.Google ScholarPubMed

von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007; 335(7624):806–808. doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brouwers, MC, Kerkvliet, K, Spithoff, K, Consortium, ANS. The AGREE reporting checklist: A tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016; 352:i1152. doi:10.1136/bmj.i1152.Google ScholarPubMed

Chen, Y, Yang, K, Marušic, A, et al. A reporting tool for practice guidelines in health care: The RIGHT Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166(2):128–132. doi:10.7326/M16-1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tong, A, Sainsbury, P, Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349–357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ogrinc, G, Davies, L, Goodman, D, Batalden, P, Davidoff, F, Stevens, D. Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. Am J Crit Care. 2015; 24(6):466–473. doi:10.4037/ajcc2015455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Benchimol, EI, Smeeth, L, Guttmann, A, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(10):e1001885. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Howick, J, Webster, RK, Rees, JL, et al. TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(9):e1003294. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Campbell, M, Katikireddi, SV, Hoffmann, T, Armstrong, R, Waters, E, Craig, P. TIDieR-PHP: A reporting guideline for population health and policy interventions. BMJ. 2018; 361:k1079. doi:10.1136/bmj.k1079.Google ScholarPubMed

Butcher, NJ, Monsour, A, Mew, EJ, et al. Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. JAMA. 2022; 328(22):2252–2264. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.21022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Butcher, NJ, Monsour, A, Mew, EJ, et al. Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. JAMA. 2022; 328(23):2345–2356. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.21243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moynihan, R, Albarqouni, L, Nangla, C, Dunn, AG, Lexchin, J, Bero, L. Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: Cross sectional study. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1505. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1505.Google ScholarPubMed

Friedman, LS, Richter, ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19(1):51–56. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dunn, AG, Coiera, E, Mandl, KD, Bourgeois, FT. Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: A review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wang, AT, McCoy, CP, Murad, MH, Montori, VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: Cross sectional systematic review. BMJ. 2010; 340:c1344. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mandrioli, D, Kearns, CE, Bero, LA. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: A systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0162198. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bes-Rastrollo, M, Schulze, MB, Ruiz-Canela, M, Martinez-Gonzalez, MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(12):e1001578; discussion e1001578. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Norris, SL, Holmer, HK, Ogden, LA, Burda, BU. Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(10):e25153. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shnier, A, Lexchin, J, Romero, M, Brown, K. Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: A case study analysis of guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association Infobase. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16(a):383. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1646-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder, 3rd ed. 2010.Google Scholar

Cosgrove, L, Bursztajn, HJ, Erlich, DR, Wheeler, EE, Shaughnessy, AF. Conflicts of interest and the quality of recommendations in clinical guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013; 19(4):674–681. doi:10.1111/jep.12016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DuBroff, R. Confirmation bias, conflicts of interest and cholesterol guidance: Can we trust expert opinions? QJM. 2018; 111(10):687–689. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcx213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Guan, ML, Pillinger, MH, Abeles, AM. Accuracy of financial disclosures in US‐based Rheumatology Journals. Arthritis Care & Research. 2024; 76(2):304–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cristea, IA, Ioannidis, JPA. Improving disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for research on psychosocial interventions. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018; 75(6):541–542. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Linehan, M. Cognitive-behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. Diagnosis and Treatment of Mental Disorders. Guilford Press; 1993:xvii, p. 558.Google Scholar

Linehan, MM, Comtois, KA, Murray, AM, et al. Two-year randomized controlled trial and follow-up of dialectical behavior therapy vs therapy by experts for suicidal behaviors and borderline personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006; 63(7):757–766. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.7.757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carey, B. I Answer the Phone at a Mental Health Hotline. Here’s What I’ve Learned. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/opinion/health/mental-health-outreach.html.Google Scholar

Navarro-Haro, MV, Harned, MS, Korslund, KE, et al. Predictors of adoption and reach following dialectical behavior therapy intensive Training™. Community Ment Health J. 2019; 55(1):100–111. doi:10.1007/s10597-018-0254-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cristea, IA, Gentili, C, Pietrini, P, Cuijpers, P. Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: Meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2017; 210(1):16–23. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Roseman, M, Milette, K, Bero, LA, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA. 2011; 305(10):1008–1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dirnagl, U, Lauritzen, M. Fighting publication bias: Introducing the Negative Results section. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010; 30(7):1263–1264. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1996-FY2024 (Congressional Research Service). (May 17, 2023).Google Scholar

Martin, L, Hutchens, M, Hawkins, C, Radnov, A. How much do clinical trials cost? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017; 16(6):381–382. doi:10.1038/nrd.2017.70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Donahue, PT, Grove, G, Stillman, C, et al. Estimating the financial costs associated with a phase III, multi-site exercise intervention trial: Investigating Gains in Neurocognition in an Intervention Trial of Exercise (IGNITE). Contemp Clin Trials. 2021; 105:106401. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eisenstein, EL, Lemons, PW, Tardiff, BE, Schulman, KA, Jolly, MK, Califf, RM. Reducing the costs of phase III cardiovascular clinical trials. Am Heart J. 2005; 149(3):482–488. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2004.04.049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Emanuel, EJ, Schnipper, LE, Kamin, DY, Levinson, J, Lichter, AS. The costs of conducting clinical research. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(22):4145–4150. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.08.156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Johnston, SC, Rootenberg, JD, Katrak, S, Smith, WS, Elkins, JS. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006; 367(9519):1319–1327. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68578-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, GS, Carey, C, Grarup, J, et al. Lessons learned: Infrastructure development and financial management for large, publicly funded, international trials. Clin Trials. 2016; 13(2):127–136. doi:10.1177/1740774515625974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDonald, AM, Knight, RC, Campbell, MK, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006; 7:9. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-7-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moore, TJ, Zhang, H, Anderson, G, Alexander, GC. Estimated costs of pivotal trials for novel therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2015–2016. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(11):1451–1457. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pascarella, G, Capasso, A, Nardone, A, et al. Costs of clinical trials with anticancer biological agents in an Oncologic Italian Cancer Center using the activity-based costing methodology. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0210330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raftery, J, Young, A, Stanton, L, et al. Clinical trial metadata: Defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(11):1–138. doi:10.3310/hta19110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sertkaya, A, Wong, HH, Jessup, A, Beleche, T. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin Trials. 2016; 13(2):117–126. doi:10.1177/1740774515625964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stergiopoulos, S, Calvert, SB, Brown, CA, et al. Cost drivers of a hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia phase 3 clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(1):72–80. doi:10.1093/cid/cix726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Li, G, Sajobi, TT, Menon, BK, et al. Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research? J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 80:16–24. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rennane, S, Baker, L, Mulcahy, A. Estimating the cost of industry investment in drug research and development: A review of methods and results. Inquiry. 2021; 58:469580211059731. doi:10.1177/00469580211059731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sertkaya, A, DeVries, R, Jessup, A, Beleche, T. Estimated cost of developing a therapeutic complex medical device in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(9):e2231609. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wouters, OJ, McKee, M, Luyten, J. Estimated research and development investment needed to bring a new medicine to market, 2009–2018. JAMA. 2020; 323(9):844–853. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

In brief: Uridine triacetate (Xuriden) for hereditary orotic aciduria. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2016; 58(1491):e49.Google Scholar

McMurray, JJ, Packer, M, Desai, AS, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(11):993–1004. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1409077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kasenda, B, von Elm, E, You, J, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA. 2014; 311(10):1045–1051. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McLennan, S, Griessbach, A, Briel, M, Group MRTAM. Practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding investigator-initiated clinical trial funding acquisition and cost management. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(6):e2111847. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nevens, H, Harrison, J, Vrijens, F, et al. Budgeting of non-commercial clinical trials: Development of a budget tool by a public funding agency. Trials. 2019; 20(1):714. doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3900-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Belgium Health Care Knowledge Centre (KBHK). 2022 – KCE Trials 2022 Investigator-led call. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://kce.fgov.be/en/kce-trials/calls/2022-kce-trials-2022-investigator-led-call.Google Scholar

Sulmasy, LS, Bledsoe, TA, ACP Ethics PoaHRC. American college of physicians ethics manual: Seventh edition. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(2_Suppl):S1–S32. doi:10.7326/M18-2160.Google ScholarPubMed

Alturki, R, Schandelmaier, S, Olu, KK, et al. Premature trial discontinuation often not accurately reflected in registries: Comparison of registry records with publications. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 81:56–63. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bennette, CS, Ramsey, SD, McDermott, CL, Carlson, JJ, Basu, A, Veenstra, DL. Predicting low accrual in the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(2). doi:10.1093/jnci/djv324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Briel, M, Olu, KK, von Elm, E, et al. A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 80:8–15. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carlisle, B, Kimmelman, J, Ramsay, T, MacKinnon, N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: An empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials. 2015; 12(1):77–83. doi:10.1177/1740774514558307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bogin, V. Lasagna’s law: A dish best served early. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2022; 26:100900. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grady, C, Dickert, N, Jawetz, T, Gensler, G, Emanuel, E. An analysis of U.S. practices of paying research participants. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005; 26(3):365–375. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. DHEW Publication no (OS) 78-0012. The Commission; U.S. Govt. Print. Off.; 1978:p. 20.Google Scholar

Gelinas, L, Largent, EA, Cohen, IG, Kornetsky, S, Bierer, BE, Fernandez Lynch, H. A framework for ethical payment to research participants. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(8):766–771. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1710591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Largent, EA, Fernandez Lynch, H. Paying research participants: Regulatory uncertainty, conceptual confusion, and a path forward. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2017; 17(1):61–141.Google Scholar

Gelinas, L. On measuring attitudes about payment for research. J Med Ethics. 2020; 46(12):833–834. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gelinas, L, White, SA, Bierer, BE. Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation. Clin Trials. 2020; 17(3):264–272. doi:10.1177/1740774520905596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Halpern, SD, Karlawish, JH, Casarett, D, Berlin, JA, Asch, DA. Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164(7):801–803. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.7.801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lazovski, J, Losso, M, Krohmal, B, Emanuel, EJ, Grady, C, Wendler, D. Benefits and burdens of participation in a longitudinal clinical trial. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2009; 4(3):89–97. doi:10.1525/jer.2009.4.3.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dominguez, D, Jawara, M, Martino, N, Sinaii, N, Grady, C. Commonly performed procedures in clinical research: A benchmark for payment. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012; 33(5):860–868. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2012.05.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Inflation calculator. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.Google Scholar

Ripley, E, Macrina, F, Markowitz, M, Gennings, C. Who’s doing the math? Are we really compensating research participants? J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010; 5(3):57–65. doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Klitzman, R, Albala, I, Siragusa, J, Nelson, KN, Appelbaum, PS. The reporting of monetary compensation in research articles. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007; 2(4):61–67. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rosenberg, LE. Exceptional economic returns on investments in medical research. Med J Aust. 2002; 177(7):368–371. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04840.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

List, JA. The Voltage Effect: How to Make Good Ideas Great and Great Ideas Scale. Currency; 2022.Google Scholar

Blakemore, C, Davidson, J. Putting a value on medical research. Lancet. 2006; 367(9519):1293–1295. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68552-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gillum, LA, Gouveia, C, Dorsey, ER, et al. NIH disease funding levels and burden of disease. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2):e16837. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ballreich, JM, Gross, CP, Powe, NR, Anderson, GF. Allocation of National Institutes of Health Funding by disease category in 2008 and 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(1):e2034890. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Getz, KA. With clinical data, less is more. Applied Clinical Trials. 2010:28–29.Google Scholar

Williams, RJ, Tse, T, DiPiazza, K, Zarin, DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database: Evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5):e0127242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127242.Google ScholarPubMed

Lund, H, Robinson, KA, Gjerland, A, et al. Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: A scoping review. Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1):241. doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02096-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Glasziou, P, Djulbegovic, B, Burls, A. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet. 2006; 367(9528):2057–2058. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68919-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anderson, BR, Gotlieb, EG, Hill, K, et al. Registry-based trials: A potential model for cost savings? Cardiol Young. 2020; 30(6):807–817. doi:10.1017/S1047951120001018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Onken, L. Implementation science at the National Institute on Aging: The principles of it. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2022; 32(1):39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larimer, ME, Kilmer, JR, Cronce, JM, Hultgren, BA, Gilson, MS, Lee, CM. Thirty years of BASICS: Dissemination and implementation progress and challenges. Psychol Addict Behav. 2022; 36(6):664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hamilton, A, Mittman, BS. Implementation science in health care. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2018; 2:385–400.Google Scholar

Schoenwald, SK, McHugh, RK, Barlow, DH. The science of dissemination and implementation. Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-based Psychological Interventions. 2012:16–42.Google Scholar

Brownson, RC, Colditz, GA, Proctor, EK. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. Oxford University Press; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balas, EA, Boren, SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearb Med Inform. 2000; 9(01):65–70.Google Scholar

Morris, ZS, Wooding, S, Grant, J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011; 104(12):510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dong, P, Loh, M, Mondry, A. Publication lag in biomedical journals varies due to the periodical’s publishing model. Scientometrics. 2006; 69(2):271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khan, S, Chambers, D, Neta, G. Revisiting time to translation: Implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in cancer control. Cancer Causes Control. 2021; 32:221–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bickman, L. Improving mental health services: A 50-year journey from randomized experiments to artificial intelligence and precision mental health. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020; 47(5):795–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schmaling, KB, Kaplan, RM. Depression trial results: A cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov. J Psychiatr Res. 2023; 161:461–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Emmons, KM, Chambers, DA. Policy implementation science–an unexplored strategy to address social determinants of health. Ethn Dis. 2021; 31(1):133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Koong, AJ, Irvin, V. Review of evidence supporting 2022 US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(8):e2327650–e2327650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Koong, AJ, Irvin, V. Food and Drug Administration novel drug decisions in 2017: Transparency and disclosure prior to and 5 years following approval. Health Aff Sch. 2023; 1(2):qxad028.Google ScholarPubMed

Lai, CK, Ng, RW, Leung, SS, Hui, M, Ip, M. Overcoming the rising incidence and evolving mechanisms of antibiotic resistance by novel drug delivery approaches–an overview. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2022; 181:114078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vestergaard, M, Frees, D, Ingmer, H. Antibiotic resistance and the MRSA problem. Microbiol Spectr. 2019; 7(2):18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hrbacek, J, Cermak, P, Zachoval, R. Current antibiotic resistance trends of uropathogens in Central Europe: Survey from a Tertiary hospital urology department 2011–2019. Antibiotics. 2020; 9(9):630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Podschun, R, Ullmann, U. Klebsiella spp. as nosocomial pathogens: Epidemiology, taxonomy, typing methods, and pathogenicity factors. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998; 11(4):589–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Magalhães, C, Lima, M, Trieu-Cuot, P, Ferreira, P. To give or not to give antibiotics is not the only question. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021; 21(7):e191–e201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tan, SY, Yip, A. António egas moniz (1874–1955): Lobotomy pioneer and Nobel laureate. Singapore Med J. 2014; 55(4):175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nobel Prize Committee. Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1950/summary/Google Scholar

Grennan, D, Wang, S. Steroid side effects. JAMA. 2019; 322(3):282–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feuerstein, JD, Isaacs, KL, Schneider, Y, et al. AGA clinical practice guidelines on the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2020; 158(5):1450–1461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brown, MS, Goldstein, JL. Heart Attacks: Gone with the Century? American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1996. pp. 629–629.Google ScholarPubMed

Sun, J, Li, Y, Zhao, M, et al. Association of the American Heart Association’s new “Life’s Essential 8” with all-cause and cardiovascular disease-specific mortality: Prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2023; 21(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chou, R, Cantor, A, Dana, T, et al. Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022; 328(8):754–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Byrne, P, Demasi, M, Jones, M, Smith, SM, O’Brien, KK, DuBroff, R. Evaluating the association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and relative and absolute effects of statin treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2022.Google ScholarPubMed

McKinney, RE, Eng, B, York, O. Rapid Experimentation: The Silicon Valley Method of Success. 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Babineaux, R, Krumboltz, J. Fail Fast, Fail Often: How Losing Can Help You Win. TarcherPerigee; 2013.Google Scholar

Kwon, D, Sorenson, O. The Silicon Valley syndrome. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2023; 47(2):344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List, JA. The voltage effect. Business Economics. 2023:1–6.Google Scholar

Bradley, CS, Dreifuerst, KT, Johnson, BK, Loomis, A. More than a meme: The Dunning-Kruger effect as an opportunity for positive change in nursing education. ClinSimul Nurs. 2022; 66:58–65.Google Scholar

de Vries, Y, Roest, A, de Jonge, P, Cuijpers, P, Munafò, M, Bastiaansen, J. The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: The case of depression. Psychol Med. 2018; 48(15):2453–2455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Khan, MS, Lateef, N, Siddiqi, TJ, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2(5):e192622–e192622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Malmberg, K, Rydén, L, Efendic, S, et al. Randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): Effects on mortality at 1 year. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 26(1):57–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mellbin, LG, Malmberg, K, Norhammar, A, Wedel, H, Ryden, L. The impact of glucose lowering treatment on long-term prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction: A report from the DIGAMI 2 trial. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29(2):166–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Loffler, KA, Patel, SR. Reporting Findings in Sleep Medicine: Is It Time for Some Spin Control? Oxford University Press US; 2023. p. zsad045.Google ScholarPubMed

Shirvani, S, Rives-Lange, C, Rassy, N, et al. Spin in the scientific literature on bariatric endoscopy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Obes Surg. 2022:1–9.Google ScholarPubMed

Wu, J, Ho, W, Klotz, L, Yuan, M, Lee, JY, Krakowsky, Y. Assessing “Spin” in urology randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. J Urol. 2023; 209(3):494–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Su, N, Van Der Linden, M, Van Der Heijden, GJ, Listl, S, Schandelmaier, S, Faggion, CM. Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: A protocol for a meta-research study. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(4):e043784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, R. Advertising Medicine: Who’s Minding the Store? Stanford Technology Law Review. 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sachs, EA. Health claims in the marketplace: The future of the FDA and the FTC’s regulatory split. Food Drug Law J. 1993; 48(2):263–283.Google Scholar

McMurray, JJ, Packer, M, Desai, AS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(11):993–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Solomon, SD, McMurray, JJ, Anand, IS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(17):1609–1620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mann, DL, Givertz, MM, Vader, JM, et al. Effect of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022; 7(1):17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harman, G. Science and storytelling: Making physicians’ voices the loudest in the room. AMA Website. 2021.Google Scholar

Karatasakis, A, Danek, BA, Karacsonyi, J, et al. Effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on clinical outcomes in patients with hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis of 35 randomized controlled trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6:e006910. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Khan, SU, Yedlapati, SH, Lone, AN, et al. PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe with or without statin therapy for cardiovascular risk reduction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022; 377.Google ScholarPubMed

Wang, W, Feng, Z, Bai, J. Effects of alirocumab on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 22(3):873–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Afonso, J, Ramirez-Campillo, R, Clemente, FM, Büttner, FC, Andrade, R. The perils of misinterpreting and misusing “publication bias” in meta-analyses: An education review on funnel plot-based methods. Sports Med. 2023:1–13.Google ScholarPubMed

Light, RJ, Richard, J, Pillemer, DB, Light, R. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Harvard University Press; 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diener, MJ. Cohen’s d. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. 2010:1–1.Google Scholar

Kaplan, RM, Irvin, VL. Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PloS One. 2015; 10(8):e0132382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Block, J. Covid-19: Researchers Face Wait for Patient Level Data from Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine Trials. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2022.Google ScholarPubMed

Stephenson, J. In a first, FDA Warns Company to remedy failure to post clinical trial results. Am Med Assoc; 2021:e211306–e211306.Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. FDA drug approvals: Let us see all the evidence. MedPage. August 23, 2023.Google Scholar

Dunleavy, K. Johnson & Johnson inks $700M deal to resolve talc consumer protection claims from 42 states. Pharma. 2024.Google Scholar

Abramson, JD. Sickening: How Big Pharma Broke American Health Care and How We Can Repair It. Mariner Books; 2022.Google Scholar

Wikipedia. List of largest pharmaceutical settlements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements.Google Scholar

Ubel, PA. Medical facts versus value judgments – Toward preference-sensitive guidelines. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(26):2475–2477. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1504245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ubel, PA, Comerford, DA, Johnson, E. Healthcare.gov 3.0 – behavioral economics and insurance exchanges. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(8):695–698. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1414771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Roland, M, Dudley, RA. How financial and reputational incentives can be used to improve medical care. Health Serv Res. 2015. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. The Ziggy theorem: Toward an outcomes-focused health psychology. Health Psychol. 1994; 13(6):451–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Singer, P, McKie, J, Kuhse, H, Richardson, J. Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. J Med Ethics. 1995; 21(3):144–150. doi:10.1136/jme.21.3.144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neumann, PJ, Weinstein, MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(16):1495–1497. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1007168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. The Hippocratic Predicament: Affordability, Access, and Accountability in American Medicine. Academic Press; 1993.Google Scholar

Kaplan, RM. Value judgment in the Oregon Medicaid experiment. Med Care. 1994; 32(10):975–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Anderson, JP. A general health policy model: Update and applications. Health Serv Res. 1988; 23(2):203.Google ScholarPubMed

Neumann, PJ, Kim, DD, Trikalinos, TA, et al. Future directions for cost-effectiveness analyses in health and medicine. Med Decis Making. 2018; 38(7):767–777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neumann, PJ, Sanders, GD, Russell, LB, Siegel, JE, Ganiats, TG. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woolf, SH, Aron, LY, National Academies (U.S.). Panel on Understanding Cross-National Health Differences Among High-Income Countries, Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. U.S. health in international perspective: Shorter lives, poorer health. The National Academies Press; 2013:xxv, 394 pages.Google Scholar

Kirsch, I. The emperor’s new drugs: Exploding the antidepressant myth. ReadHowYouWant.com; 2010.Google Scholar

Checkland, P. Systems theory and management thinking. Am Behav Sci. 1994; 38(1):75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study G, Gerstein, HC, Miller, ME, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(24):2545–2559. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0802743.Google ScholarPubMed

Singh, AK, Szczech, L, Tang, KL, et al. Correction of anemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(20):2085–2098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa065485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Drueke, TB, Locatelli, F, Clyne, N, et al. Normalization of hemoglobin level in patients with chronic kidney disease and anemia. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(20):2071–2084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gharajedaghi, JAR. Mechanisms, organisms, and social systems. Strategic Manage J. 1984; 5:289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaplan, RM, Ries, AL. Quality of life: Concept and definition. Copd. 2007; 4(3):263–271. doi:10.1080/15412550701480356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiscella, K, Ransom, S, Jean-Pierre, P, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures suitable to assessment of patient navigation. Rev Cancer. 2011; 117(15 Suppl):3603–3617. doi:10.1002/cncr.26260.Google ScholarPubMed

Pandol, S, Gukovskaya, A, Edderkoui, M, Dawson, D, Eibl, G, Lugea, A. Epidemiology, risk factors, and the promotion of pancreatic cancer: Role of the stellate cell. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 27(s2):127–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cohn, JN. Introduction to surrogate markers. Circulation. 2004; 109(25 Suppl 1):IV20–IV21. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000133441.05780.1d.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maulden, A. Ignoring the experts: Implications of the FDA’s Aduhelm approval. Am J Law Med. 2022; 48(1):108–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Karlawish, J, Grill, JD. The approval of Aduhelm risks eroding public trust in Alzheimer research and the FDA. Nat Rev Neurol. 2021; 17(9):523–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tanzi, RE. FDA Approval of Aduhelm Paves a New Path for Alzheimer’s Disease. ACS Publications; 2021. pp. 2714–2715.Google Scholar

Gusmano, MK. Aduhelm and the politics of drug approval in the United States. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2022; 32(2):66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vellas, BJ. The Geriatrician, the Primary Care Physician, Aducanumab and the FDA Decision: From Frustration to New Hope. Springer; 2021. pp. 821–823.Google ScholarPubMed

Qiao, Y, Chi, Y, Zhang, Q, Ma, Y. Safety and efficacy of lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Front Aging Neurosci. 2023; 15:1169499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kurkinen, M. Lecanemab (Leqembi) is not the right drug for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2023; 32(9):943–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Heneghan, C, Jefferson, T. The week in numbers August 31, 2024. Trust the Evidence. https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/the-week-in-numbers-to-aug-31st?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1029183&post_id=148319239&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=f54dx&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email.Google Scholar

Kaplan, RM. Behavior as the central outcome in health care. Am Psychol. Nov 1990; 45(11):1211–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Fee, K, Deych, E, Ciani, O, Brown, DL. Assessment of nonfatal myocardial infarction as a surrogate for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in treatment or prevention of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181(12):1575–1587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. Health outcome models for policy analysis. Health Psychol. 1989; 8(6):723–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. More than Medicine: The Broken Promise of American Health. Harvard University Press; 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guirguis-Blake, J, Evans, CV, Perdue, LA, Bean, SI, Senger, CA. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer: An evidence update for the U.S. preventive services task force. 2022.Google ScholarPubMed

Calderone, D, Greco, A, Ingala, S, et al. Efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary cardiovascular risk prevention in younger and older age: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 173,810 subjects from 21 randomized studies. Thromb Haemost. 2022; 122(03):445–455.Google ScholarPubMed

Berger, JS. Aspirin for primary prevention – Time to rethink our approach. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(4):e2210144–e2210144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bolt, L, Speierer, A, Bétrisey, S, et al. Is there a shift from cardiovascular to cancer death in lipid-lowering trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One. 2024; 19(2):e0297852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abrams, DB. Applying transdisciplinary research strategies to understanding and eliminating health disparities. Health Educ Behav. 2006; 33(4):515–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM. The future of outcomes measurement in rheumatology. Am J Manag Care. 2007; 13(Suppl 9):S252–S255.Google ScholarPubMed

Kaplan, RM, Frosch, DL. Decision making in medicine and health care. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2005; 1:525–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Group, AS. Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(9):818–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Han, BH, Sutin, D, Williamson, JD, et al. Effect of statin treatment vs usual care on primary cardiovascular prevention among older adults: The ALLHAT-LLT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(7):955–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neale, RE, Baxter, C, Romero, BD, et al. The D-Health Trial: A randomised controlled trial of the effect of vitamin D on mortality. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022; 10(2):120–128. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00345-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

National Institutes of Health. The NIH Almanac: Chronology of events. Accessed March 21, 2024, www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/chronology-events.Google Scholar

National Institutes of Health. The NIH Almanac: Center for Scientific Review. Accessed March 21, 2024, www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/center-scientific-review-csr#events.Google Scholar

Van Slyke, CJ. New horizons in medical research. Science. 1946; 104(2711):559–567. doi:10.1126/science.104.2711.559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wiesner, JB. Vannevar Bush. Biographical Memoirs: Volume 50. 1979; 50.Google Scholar

Bush, V. Science: The Endless Frontier. US Government Printing Office; 1945.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. There and back again: Revisiting Vannevar Bush, the linear model, and the freedom of science. Res Policy. 2022; 51(10):104610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallo, SA, Thompson, LA, Schmaling, KB, Glisson, SR. The participation and motivations of Grant Peer reviewers: A comprehensive survey. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020; 26(2):761–782. doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00123-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mahmić-Kaknjo, M, Utrobičić, A, Marušić, A. Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review. Account Res. 2021; 28(5):297–329. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ware, M, Mabe, M. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 2012. March 21, 2024, www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf.Google Scholar

Schneider, B, Alexander, J, Thomas, P. Publication trends: U.S. Output and International Comparisons, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2024, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333.Google Scholar

National Institutes of Health. The NIH Data Book. Accessed March 21, 2024, https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/.Google Scholar

Association of American Medical Colleges. Faculty Roster: U.S. Medical School Faculty. Accessed March 20, 2024, www.aamc.org/data-reports/faculty-institutions/report/faculty-roster-us-medical-school-faculty.Google Scholar

Tite, L, Schroter, S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61(1):9–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed