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.
Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 15;11(1):241. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02096-y.
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.
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.
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.
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 included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.
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.
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.
Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).
多项研究记录了浪费性研究的产生，这些研究被定义为没有科学重要性且/或不符合社会需求的研究。我们认为，研究中的这种冗余在很大程度上是由于缺乏对最佳现有证据的系统评估，以及/或者缺乏评估社会需求的研究。
本次范围综述的目的是：(A) 确定评价生物医学研究中是否存在冗余的元研究，若存在，则评估这种冗余的普遍程度；以及 (B) 确定评价研究人员是否试图最小化或避免冗余的元研究。
如果元研究评估了是否存在冗余及其程度、健康研究人员在为新研究提供依据和设计时是否参考了所有先前类似的研究，以及/或者在将新结果置于早期类似试验的背景下时是否参考了所有先前类似的研究；以及健康研究人员在为新研究提供依据和设计时是否系统和透明地考虑了最终用户的观点，则元研究（实证研究）符合入选标准。
最初的全面搜索在 MEDLINE、Embase 通过 Ovid、CINAHL、Web of Science、Social Sciences Citation Index、Arts & Humanities Citation Index 和 Cochrane 方法学登记处进行，从创建到 2015 年 6 月。第二次搜索包括 MEDLINE 和 Embase 通过 Ovid，并涵盖了 2015 年 1 月至 2021 年 5 月 26 日。未对出版物日期或语言进行限制。
图表方法包括描述纳入的研究、文献计量制图以及展示已识别的元研究中可能存在的研究空白。
我们确定了 69 项元研究。其中 34 项（49%）评估了冗余的普遍性，42 项（61%）研究评估了在为新研究提供依据和设计时，以及/或者在将新结果置于背景下时，系统透明地使用先前类似研究的普遍性，其中 7 项（10%）研究同时评估了这两个方面。只有一项（1%）研究评估了最终用户的观点是否被用于为新研究提供依据和设计。在所纳入的评估是否存在冗余的元研究中，仅在 9 个健康领域（医学领域）中的 2 个和 10 个研究主题（不同的方法类型）中得到了体现。同样，在所纳入的评估研究人员是否试图最小化或避免冗余的元研究中，9 个健康领域和 10 个研究主题中仅各有 1 个得到了体现。
即使纳入了 69 项元研究，大多数健康领域和研究主题仍缺乏信息。然而，由于大多数纳入的研究都是在不同的领域进行评估，因此有明确的迹象表明存在高度的冗余普遍性和低度的试图最小化或避免冗余普遍性。此外，只有一项元研究评估了最终用户的观点是否被用于为新研究提供依据和设计。
方案在 Open Science Framework 上注册：https://osf.io/3rdua/（2021 年 6 月 15 日）。
