Louise Olsbro Rosengaard, Mikkel Zola Andersen, Jacob Rosenberg, Siv Fonnes
{"title":"生物医学研究浪费的五个方面:范围审查。","authors":"Louise Olsbro Rosengaard, Mikkel Zola Andersen, Jacob Rosenberg, 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":"17 2","pages":"351-359"},"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":"{\"title\":\"Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Louise Olsbro Rosengaard, Mikkel Zola Andersen, Jacob Rosenberg, 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\":\"17 2\",\"pages\":\"351-359\"},\"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}","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}
Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review
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.
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.