TY - JOUR
T1 - Can a replication revolution resolve the duplication crisis in systematic reviews?
AU - Karunananthan, Sathya
AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
AU - Maxwell, Lara
AU - Nguyen, Phi Yen
AU - Page, Matthew J.
AU - Pardo Pardo, Jordi
AU - Petkovic, Jennifer
AU - Vachon, Brigitte
AU - Welch, Vivian Andrea
AU - Tugwell, Peter
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2023/10
Y1 - 2023/10
N2 - The development of knowledge is for the most part a gradual and iterative process by which every new study either confirms, extends or refutes what has been reported in previous ones. In evidence-based medicine, ideally a finding should be replicated by multiple studies before it can inform policy or practice decisions. While there is ongoing debate about the exact definition of replication, it is clear that replication has an irrefutable role in establishing the credibility of scientific findings.1
AB - The development of knowledge is for the most part a gradual and iterative process by which every new study either confirms, extends or refutes what has been reported in previous ones. In evidence-based medicine, ideally a finding should be replicated by multiple studies before it can inform policy or practice decisions. While there is ongoing debate about the exact definition of replication, it is clear that replication has an irrefutable role in establishing the credibility of scientific findings.1
KW - Systematic Reviews as Topic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174268233&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112125
DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112125
M3 - Article
C2 - 37821212
AN - SCOPUS:85174268233
SN - 2515-4478
JO - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
JF - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
M1 - bmjebm-2022-112125
ER -