Article type
Abstract
Background. Research waste is a major issue that affects all study designs and can lead to unreliable research findings and inefficient use of resources. Estimates suggest that up to 85% of all biomedical research is wasted.
Objectives. We aimed to investigate how systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews encounter and examine research waste.
Methods. We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework before conducting our scoping review. We reported our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed and Embase were searched with a 30-year limit (January 1993 to August 2023). At least two reviewers independently screened both records and full-text reports. We extracted data independently and in duplicate, regarding the method used in a review with a systematic search to examine for research waste and for which study design this method was applied.
Results. Searches identified 4,285 records, of which 94 reviews with systematic searches were included, mostly systematic reviews (78%). The reviews included a median of 90 (range 10–6,781) studies, most of which were randomised controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). More than 50% of the examined reviews evaluated methodological research waste among their included studies, using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (n = 8) for randomised controlled trials or AMSTAR 1 or 2 (n = 12) for systematic reviews. Nearly 50% assessed underreporting research waste e.g., adherence to the reporting guidelines CONSORT (n = 4) for randomised controlled trials or PRISMA (n =6) for systematic reviews. A wide range of methods and tools were used to assess research waste (Table 1).
Conclusion. Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and adherence to reporting guidelines when examining research waste. This overview guides researchers on methodologies to assess research waste and contributes to the ongoing discussion on reducing waste. Future reporting guidelines may consider including research waste evaluation.
Relevance and importance to patients. By improving the efficiency and reliability of research, we can enhance the development of treatments and ultimately improve the standard of patient care and outcomes.
Objectives. We aimed to investigate how systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews encounter and examine research waste.
Methods. We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework before conducting our scoping review. We reported our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed and Embase were searched with a 30-year limit (January 1993 to August 2023). At least two reviewers independently screened both records and full-text reports. We extracted data independently and in duplicate, regarding the method used in a review with a systematic search to examine for research waste and for which study design this method was applied.
Results. Searches identified 4,285 records, of which 94 reviews with systematic searches were included, mostly systematic reviews (78%). The reviews included a median of 90 (range 10–6,781) studies, most of which were randomised controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). More than 50% of the examined reviews evaluated methodological research waste among their included studies, using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (n = 8) for randomised controlled trials or AMSTAR 1 or 2 (n = 12) for systematic reviews. Nearly 50% assessed underreporting research waste e.g., adherence to the reporting guidelines CONSORT (n = 4) for randomised controlled trials or PRISMA (n =6) for systematic reviews. A wide range of methods and tools were used to assess research waste (Table 1).
Conclusion. Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and adherence to reporting guidelines when examining research waste. This overview guides researchers on methodologies to assess research waste and contributes to the ongoing discussion on reducing waste. Future reporting guidelines may consider including research waste evaluation.
Relevance and importance to patients. By improving the efficiency and reliability of research, we can enhance the development of treatments and ultimately improve the standard of patient care and outcomes.