{{ vm.tagsGroup }}
17 Aug 2026
6 Min Read
Dr Lai Nai Ming (Academic Contributor), Nellie Chan (Editor)
Every year, a vast number of medical studies are published, each adding to our understanding of interventions, innovations, and approaches to healthcare. Yet quantity does not necessarily amount to clarity. When studies report differing—or even conflicting—findings, interpreting the broader body of evidence becomes a nuanced undertaking.
At Taylor’s University, Dr Lai Nai Ming is exploring how evidence synthesis can help determine what can reasonably be concluded when individual studies are considered collectively. Rather than performing primary research, he critically appraises the available literature, helping to provide a firmer basis for healthcare decisions.
Ranked among the World’s Top 2% Scientists for 2025 by Stanford University, Dr Lai is a professor at the School of Medicine. This recognition reflects his influential contributions to evidence-based healthcare, where his work is enabling more informed healthcare decision-making.
In his current research, he conducts systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesise existing findings, helping identify those that can be confidently applied in practice.
We spoke with him about his pursuit of evidence synthesis, his commitment to rigorous research, and his perspective on the impact of his work beyond academic recognition.
Q: How would you describe your research in simple terms?
A: My research brings together findings from multiple studies addressing the same clinical question to paint a clearer picture of what the evidence as a whole shows and how it can inform clinical decision-making.
Q: What led you to explore this area of research?
A: When I was a junior doctor in the United Kingdom, I worked under senior doctors (i.e., consultants) who rotated through the clinical areas I was assigned to on a daily or weekly basis. It was not uncommon to see one consultant change the treatment plan put in place by another, or hear passionate debates during departmental meetings about which treatment approach was more appropriate—without a clear consensus. I remember being confused, wondering how they could come to different decisions despite their experience and expertise, and whether one of them was right and the other wrong.
This led me to search for evidence that could better inform clinical decision-making. In doing so, I discovered evidence synthesis—the systematic process of integrating findings from multiple studies to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what the broader body of evidence suggests. When I found that the evidence I needed was often not yet synthesised, I began learning how to do it myself using resources from the Cochrane Library.
Q: How do you, then, synthesise evidence?
A: Through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews critically evaluate and consolidate evidence from relevant studies, while meta-analyses statistically combine results from those studies, where appropriate, to generate overall estimates and explore patterns across the evidence. This process not only clarifies what is currently known but also identifies what remains unknown—revealing gaps in knowledge that can guide future research.
Q: What are some of the biggest challenges involved in your research?
A: Conducting high-quality systematic reviews is both labour-intensive and time-consuming. It requires sustained focus across every stage of the process, from searching and screening thousands of studies to assessing their quality and synthesising their findings. Balancing this level of commitment alongside my responsibilities in a senior administrative role within the School is a constant challenge.
Another significant hurdle is funding. Systematic reviews often do not attract the same level of fanfare as research that introduces novel discoveries, despite their important role in informing clinical practice and policy. Without sufficient support, it becomes more difficult to engage research assistants, access paywalled journal articles, and publish completed reviews in established journals that charge publication fees.
Q: What have you come to appreciate about conducting systematic reviews?
A: I’ve come to appreciate that conducting systematic reviews isn’t always the most exciting part of research. Much of the process is meticulous and, at times, even boring—but seeing a completed review help answer clinical questions makes the effort worthwhile.
Q: Are there any common misconceptions in your area of research?
A: One common misconception I often encounter when interpreting evidence is that newsworthiness equals trustworthiness. For example, a study showing a large effect is often perceived as more trustworthy, while a study showing little or no effect may be viewed as less so. However, the reliability of research is determined by methodological rigour, not simply the results it reports. We must therefore consider the broader context of the study before deciding how much confidence to place in the evidence.
Q: Why is this research relevant today?
A: Medical research is producing an ever-growing volume of studies, making it harder to stay abreast of the latest evidence. Evidence synthesis brings together findings from these studies to draw clearer conclusions.
Q: Who stands to benefit most from your research?
A: Clinicians are among those who benefit from this research, as they rely on evidence synthesised through systematic reviews to inform their daily practice. Guideline developers and policymakers also refer to this evidence when making recommendations and policy decisions. Ultimately, patients benefit most, as they receive care informed by a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence.
Q: Given the nature of your research, how do you assess its real-world impact?
A: Citation counts are one form of assessment, but they do not fully capture how systematic reviews and meta-analyses are applied in practice. Their real-world impact lies in how the evidence is used to inform clinical practice and policy, although assessing it is less straightforward. As a clinician myself, I find satisfaction in knowing that the research can contribute to better-informed care for patients. This motivates me to continue pursuing evidence synthesis, as it’s an ongoing process that must evolve alongside new research.
Q: What role does mentorship play in your research journey?
A: Mentorship plays an important role in my research journey. I enjoy supporting the development of new researchers by involving them whenever we begin a new review. My hope is that more researchers, and clinicians too, will engage with evidence synthesis and embrace evidence-based practice in healthcare.
Q: What personal philosophy has stayed with you throughout your research journey?
A: ‘Nothing, however small, if done right, is ever trivial.’
Research doesn’t always have to uncover dramatic discoveries to be valuable. I believe meticulous and rigorous work—regardless of scale—can contribute to progress when pursued with purpose.
Dr Lai’s research reminds us that progress in medicine is not measured only by how much we discover, but by how thoughtfully we interpret what those discoveries mean. Through evidence synthesis, he helps healthcare professionals navigate a vast and evolving research landscape.
Next, through his leadership role in Cochrane, Dr Lai will broaden his collaborations with researchers worldwide to build on this work, particularly in neonatal care, while helping develop strategies to improve the quality, integrity, and timeliness of the evidence base.
At its core, his work shows that better decisions in healthcare—and, in turn, better patient care—come not from the loudest evidence, but from the soundest.
