Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review.

Autor: Lund H; Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, P.O.Box 7030, N-5020, Bergen, Norway. Hans.lund@hvl.no., Robinson KA; Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, P.O.Box 7030, N-5020, Bergen, Norway.; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA., Gjerland A; Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, P.O.Box 7030, N-5020, Bergen, Norway., Nykvist H; Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, P.O.Box 7030, N-5020, Bergen, Norway., Drachen TM; Research and Analysis Department, University Library of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark., Christensen R; Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.; Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark., Juhl CB; Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.; Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark., Jamtvedt G; Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet, Oslo, Norway., Nortvedt M; Faculty of Health and Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway., Bjerrum M; Research Unit of Nursing and healthcare, Institute of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.; The Centre of Clinical Guidelines, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.; The Danish Centre of Systematic Reviews - A JBI Centre of Excellence, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Denmark., Westmore M; Health Research Authority, NHS, London, UK., Yost J; M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA., Brunnhuber K; Clinical Solutions, Elsevier Ltd., 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS, UK.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Systematic reviews [Syst Rev] 2022 Nov 15; Vol. 11 (1), pp. 241. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Nov 15.
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02096-y
Abstrakt: Background: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs.
Objectives: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy.
Eligibility Criteria: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study.
Sources of Evidence: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied.
Charting Methods: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.
Results: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented.
Conclusions That Relate to the Review Questions and Objectives: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study.
Systematic Review Registration: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje