Center for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
J Evid Based Med. 2024 Jun;17(2):351-359. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12616. Epub 2024 May 26.
The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.
In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste.
Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. 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, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a 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.
MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.
在过去的 30 年中,发表的期刊文章数量呈指数级增长,这可能导致了一些浪费性的研究。然而,与研究浪费相关的术语仍不清楚。为了解决这个问题,我们旨在确定、定义和分类已发表的生物医学报告中研究浪费的各个方面。
在这项范围界定审查中,我们系统地在两个数据库中搜索了 1993 年至 2023 年的生物医学文献报告,重点关注那些涉及和定义研究浪费的报告。通过数据图表,我们分析和分类了研究浪费的各个方面。
根据搜索中最初的 4285 条记录,共有 832 篇报告纳入了分析。纳入的报告主要是叙述性评论(26%)和原始报告(21%)。我们将研究浪费分为五个方面:方法学、无形、可忽略、未报告和结构性(MINUS)研究浪费。超过一半的报告(56%)涵盖了研究设计、研究实施或分析中的缺陷等方法学研究浪费。无形的研究浪费涵盖了未发表、中止和缺乏数据共享等问题。可忽略的研究浪费主要涉及不必要的重复,例如,由于缺乏对试验的系统综述而导致的重复。未报告的研究浪费主要包括报告质量差,导致缺乏透明度。结构性研究浪费包括管理、合作、优先级设置、实施和传播方面的不足。
MINUS 包含了研究浪费的五个主要方面。认识到这些研究浪费的方面对于解决和防止进一步的研究浪费,从而确保资源的有效配置和科学的完整性是很重要的。