You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Research methods and reporting
Registration of health and medical research
  1. Aidan G Cashin1,2,
  2. Georgia C Richards3,4,
  3. Nicholas J DeVito5,
  4. David T Mellor6,
  5. Hopin Lee7,8
  1. 1Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Global Centre on Healthcare and Urbanisation, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  4. 4Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  5. 5Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  6. 6Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  7. 7Centre for Statistics in Medicine & Rehabilitation Research in Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  8. 8School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Aidan G Cashin, Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia; a.cashin{at}neura.edu.au

Abstract

Registration of health and medical research is an effective way of improving the transparency and credibility of evidence. Registration involves pre-specifying the research objectives, design, methods and analytic plan on a publicly accessible repository before conducting the study. Registration can reduce bias and improve the transparency and credibility of research findings. Registration is mandated for clinical trials, but it is also relevant to systematic reviews, observational and preclinical experimental research. This paper describes how researchers can register their research and outlines possible barriers and challenges in doing so. Widespread adoption of research registration can reduce research waste and improve evidence-informed clinical and policy decision making.

  • evidence-based practice

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111836

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    There are no data in this work.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @AidanCashin, @Richards_G_C

    • Contributors AGC, GCR, NJDV and HL conceptualised the paper. All authors contributed to data interpretation. AGC wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors provided substantive feedback on the manuscript and have read and approved the final version. AGC is the guarantor and attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests GCR was financially supported by the NHS, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), the Naji Foundation and the Rotary Foundation to study for a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) at the University of Oxford (2017-2020), but no longer has interests to declare. GCR is an Associate Editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. DTM is employed by the Center for Open Science, which advocates for study registration and builds and maintains the Open Science Framework, an open source platform that include a study registry. All other authors declare no competing interests.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.