它在这里。经过多年的辛勤工作并涉及大量角色，我很高兴地宣布，您现在可以通过Crossmark对话框立即链接到与个人临床试验有关的所有已发表文章。链接的临床试验在这里！

实际上，这意味着任何阅读文章的人都将能够列出与该文章以及与这些临床试验有关的所有其他文章有关的临床试验列表，无论是协议，统计分析计划，结果文章还是其他文章 - 都是单击按钮：

Now I’m sure you’ll agree that this sounds nifty. It’s definitely a ‘nice-to-have’. But why was it worth all the effort? Well, simply put: “to move a mountain, you begin by carrying away the small stones”.

Science communication in its current form is an anachronism, or at the very least somewhat redundant.

您可能已经读过“可重复性危机”. Good science, at its heart, should be testable, falsifiable and reproducible, but an historical over-emphasis on results has led to a huge number of problems that seriously undermine the integrity of the scientific literature.

诸如出版偏见，结果和分析的选择性报告，已知结果之后的假设（Harking）和P黑客等问题是广泛的，并且可以严重扭曲文献基础（除非有人认真考虑了Nicholas Cage to be causally related to people drowning in swimming pools).

This is, of course, nothing new. Calls for prospective registration of clinical trials追溯到1980年代和it is now becoming increasingly commonplace, recognising that the quality of research lies in the questions it asks and the methods it uses, not the results observed.

在此基础上,许多期刊和资助者– starting with BioMed Central’s试验十多年前- 还推动了研究协议的前瞻性发布，以及最近的统计分析计划。零和非确认结果具有价值并且应该发表的想法也获得了越来越多的支持。

在过去的十年中，提高透明度的一般趋势。那有什么问题？好吧，借用杰里米·格里姆肖（Jeremy Grimshaw）的比喻，试验- 我们从Miró到Pollock.

尽管结果论文可能会引用已发表的研究方案，但没有什么可以将报告与随后发表的文章的报告。并且没有从协议本身到结果文章的链接。

Asingle clinical trial can result in multiple publications: the study protocol and traditional results paper or papers, as well as commentaries, secondary analyses and, eventually, systematic reviews, among others, many published in different journals, years apart. This situation is further complicated by an ever-growing body of literature.

Researchers need access to all of these articles if they are to reliably evaluate bias or selective reporting in a piece of research, but – as any systematic reviewer can tell you – actually finding them all is like looking for a needle in a haystack. When you don’t know how many needles there are. With the haystack still growing.

That’s where we come in. The advent of trial registration means that there is a unique identifier associated with every clinical trial, at the study-level, rather than the article level. Building on this, theLinked Clinical Trials projectset out to connect all articles relating to an individual trial together using its trial registration number (TRN).

您将能够从任何相关文章的跨标记对话框中获取与单个临床试验有关的所有文章。

By adapting the existing CrossMark standard, we have captured additional metadata about an article, namely the TRN and the trial registry, with this information then associated with the article’s DOI on publication. This means that you will be able to pull all articles related to an individual clinical trial from the CrossMark dialogue box on any relevant article.

显然，这对科学的报告和使用方式具有巨大影响。通过快速轻松地链接到相关已发表的文章，它将使编辑，审阅者和研究人员能够评估研究中的任何选择性报告，并帮助为结果提供更大的背景。

As all the metadata will be open access (CC0), with no copyright, it will also be possible to access this article ‘thread’ through the Crossref Metadata Search, or independently through an application programming interface (API). This provides a platform for others to build on, with many already looking to take the next step, such as Ben Goldacre’s newOpen Trials initiative.

但是，为了使其起作用，我们必须捕获尽可能多的文章和试验，以创建真正全面的出版物。目前，我们有来自NIHR图书馆，PLO的数据，当然还有Biomed Central，但是需要更多的出版商和期刊加入我们的临床试验元数据。毕竟，没有元数据，这只是一厢情愿的想法。

希望我们是开始滑坡的卵石。

该博客最初发布在Crossref网站在CC-BY许可.