Article type
Abstract
Background:
The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 50 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. The extent of research waste remains uncertain, but 85% of research has been suggested to be wasted. Moreover, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear.
Objective:
To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.
Methods:
We reported our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews. In this scoping review, we systematically searched 2 databases, PubMed and Embase, for records published from 1993 to 2023. We included reports that focused on addressing and defining research waste. We included all types of reports published in biomedical journals in all languages. A protocol was made available at Open Science Framework prior to data extraction. At least 2 reviewers independently screened records and full-text reports. Through duplicate and independent data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste. Consensus was reached through discussion.
Results:
We included 832 reports from 4285 initial records. The included reports primarily consisted of narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into 5 aspects: Methodological, Invisible, Negligible, Underreported, and Structural (MINUS) research waste (Figure 1). More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, eg, when conducting a trial without a preceding systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.
Conclusion:
MINUS encapsulates the 5 main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste, thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.
Relevance and Importance for Patients:
Recognizing and addressing research waste is crucial to optimize the time and effort used by participants in research.
The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 50 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. The extent of research waste remains uncertain, but 85% of research has been suggested to be wasted. Moreover, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear.
Objective:
To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.
Methods:
We reported our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews. In this scoping review, we systematically searched 2 databases, PubMed and Embase, for records published from 1993 to 2023. We included reports that focused on addressing and defining research waste. We included all types of reports published in biomedical journals in all languages. A protocol was made available at Open Science Framework prior to data extraction. At least 2 reviewers independently screened records and full-text reports. Through duplicate and independent data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste. Consensus was reached through discussion.
Results:
We included 832 reports from 4285 initial records. The included reports primarily consisted of narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into 5 aspects: Methodological, Invisible, Negligible, Underreported, and Structural (MINUS) research waste (Figure 1). More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, eg, when conducting a trial without a preceding systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.
Conclusion:
MINUS encapsulates the 5 main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste, thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.
Relevance and Importance for Patients:
Recognizing and addressing research waste is crucial to optimize the time and effort used by participants in research.