Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-26 DOI:10.1111/jebm.12616
Louise Olsbro Rosengaard, Mikkel Zola Andersen, Jacob Rosenberg, Siv Fonnes
{"title":"Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review","authors":"Louise Olsbro Rosengaard,&nbsp;Mikkel Zola Andersen,&nbsp;Jacob Rosenberg,&nbsp;Siv Fonnes","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12616","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12616","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物医学研究浪费的五个方面:范围审查。
背景:在过去 30 年里,期刊论文的发表数量呈指数级增长,这可能导致了一些研究的浪费。然而,与研究浪费相关的术语仍不明确。为了解决这个问题,我们旨在对已发表的生物医学报告中研究浪费的各个方面进行识别、定义和分类:在此次范围界定综述中,我们在两个数据库中系统地搜索了 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,我们对研究浪费的各个方面进行了分析和分类:结果:根据搜索的 4285 条初始记录,共有 832 篇报告被纳入分析。纳入的报告主要是叙事性综述(26%)和原创性报告(21%)。我们将研究浪费分为五个方面:方法性研究浪费、隐形研究浪费、可忽略不计的研究浪费、报告不足的研究浪费和结构性研究浪费(MINUS)。一半以上的报告(56%)涉及方法论研究浪费,包括研究设计、研究实施或分析中的缺陷。隐形研究浪费包括未发表、中止和缺乏数据共享。可忽略不计的研究浪费主要涉及不必要的重复,例如,在试验之前没有对文献进行系统回顾。未充分报告的研究浪费主要包括报告不充分,导致缺乏透明度。结构性研究浪费包括管理不足、合作不足、优先次序安排不足、实施不足和传播不足:MINUS 囊括了研究浪费的五个主要方面。认识到研究浪费的这些方面对于解决和防止进一步的研究浪费,从而确保有效的资源分配和科学诚信非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease The Guidelines for use and promotion of low sodium salt in China The ethics of some placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials Expert-guided evaluation of medical research may promote publishing low-quality studies and increase research waste: A comparative analysis of Journal Impact Factor and Polish expert-based journal ranking list
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1