Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

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.

Keywords

biomedical research / evidence gaps / evidence-based medicine / research waste / review

References

[1] Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021; 8: 224.

[2] Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994; 308: 283.

[3] Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89.

[4] Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383: 166-175.

[5] Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383: 156-165.

[6] Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 257-266.

[7] Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014; 383: 176-185.

[8] Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 267-276.

[9] Lancet. The REWARD Statement. Accessed December 8, 2023.

[10] Khalil H, Peters MDJ, McInerney PA, et al. The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 152: 30-35.

[11] Hanney SR, Straus SE, Holmes BJ. Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022; 20: 99.

[12] Janiaud P, Hemkens LG, Ioannidis JPA. Challenges and lessons learned from COVID-19 trials: should we be doing clinical trials differently? Can J Cardiol. 2021; 37: 1353-1364.

[13] Glasziou PP, Sanders S, Hoffmann T. Waste in covid-19 research. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1847.

[14] Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18: 143.

[15] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 467-473.

[16] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19: 3-10.

[17] Rosengaard LO, Andersen MZ, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S. Concepts of research waste: a scoping review. OSF Registries 2023. Accessed December 8, 2023.

[18] Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005; 331: 1064.

[19] Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia.

[20] Rosengaard LO, Andersen MZ, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S. Dataset for five aspects of research waste: a scoping review. Zenodo; 2023.

[21] Salander P. Increasing value and reducing waste in psychosocial research demands more efforts in scrutinizing study designs. Psychooncology. 2014; 23: 1439-1440.

[22] Chapman SJ, Aldaffaa M, Downey CL, Jayne DG. Research waste in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg. 2019; 106: 1464-1471.

[23] Rogozińska E, Eckert L, Khan K. Reducing research waste through the standardisation of outcomes and definitions. BJOG. 2019; 126: 308-309.

[24] Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Atal I, et al. Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials. BMC Med. 2018; 16: 87.

[25] Mercieca-Bebber R, Palmer MJ, Brundage M, Calvert M, Stockler MR, King MT. Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016; 6:e010938.

[26] Yong N, Cooper N, Yorke S, et al. Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. BJOG. 2023; 130: 163-175.

[27] Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017; 18: 280.

[28] Townsend R, Duffy JMN, Khalil A. Increasing value and reducing research waste in obstetrics: towards woman-centered research. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 55: 151-156.

[29] Anderson SF. Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research. Qual Life Res. 2022; 31: 2917-2929.

[30] Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects—WMA Declaration of Helsinki, The World Medical Association 2022. Accessed December 8, 2023.

[31] Gillies K, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Elbourne D, Elliott J, Treweek S. Reducing research waste by promoting informed responses to invitations to participate in clinical trials. Trials. 2019; 20: 613.

[32] Arundel C, Mott A. Recruitment and retention interventions in surgical and wound care trials: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2023; 18:e0288028.

[33] Gillies K, Bower P, Elliott J, et al. Systematic Techniques to Enhance rEtention in Randomised controlled trials: the STEER study protocol. Trials. 2018; 19: 197.

[34] Brambilla M, Parra MA, Della Sala S, Alemanno F, Pomati S. Challenges to recruitment of participants with MCI in a multicentric neuropsychological study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021; 33: 2007-2010.

[35] Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Grey A. Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18: 103.

[36] Park JH, Eisenhut M, van der Vliet HJ, Shin JI. Statistical controversies in clinical research: overlap and errors in the meta-analyses of microRNA genetic association studies in cancers. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 1169-1182.

[37] Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010; 7:e1000326.

[38] Glasziou P. The role of open access in reducing waste in medical research. PLoS Med. 2014; 11:e1001651.

[39] Amstutz A, Schandelmaier S, Frei R, et al. Funding characteristics of randomised clinical trials supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation: a retrospective cohort study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018; 148:w14587.

[40] Colombo C, Roberto A, Krleza-Jeric K, Parmelli E, Banzi R. Sharing individual participant data from clinical studies: a cross-sectional online survey among Italian patient and citizen groups. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e024863.

[41] Gotzsche PC. Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it. Trials. 2011; 12: 249-249.

[42] Layton DM, Clarke M. Research waste: how are dental survival articles indexed and reported? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 125-132.

[43] Gysling S, Khan A, Caruana EJ. A systematic review of the quality of abstracts reporting on randomized controlled trials presented at major international cardiothoracic conferences. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023; 35: 437-446.

[44] Hua F, Sun Q, Zhao T, Chen X, He H. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e029270.

[45] Bruckner T, Rodgers F, Styrmisdóttir L, Keestra S. Adoption of world health organization best practices in clinical trial transparency among European medical research funder policies. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5: e2222378.

[46] Clarke M, Williamson P. Core outcome sets and trial registries. Trials. 2015; 16: 216.

[47] Lunny C, Reid EK, Neelakant T, et al. A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across overviews of systematic reviews: a meta-research study of research waste. Res Synth Methods. 2022; 13: 315-329.

[48] Buljan I, Barać L, Marušić A. How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: a qualitative study in a small scientific community. Account Res. 2018; 25: 220-238.

[49] Ban J-W, Chan MS, Muthee TB, Paez A, Stevens R, Perera R. Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 133: 111-120.

[50] Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013; 347: 12.

[51] Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H. Evidence-based research series-paper 1: what evidence-based research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 129: 151-157.

[52] Mudge DW, Webster AC, Johnson DW. Pro: meta-analysis: the case for. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016; 31: 875-880.

[53] Flohr C, Weidinger S. Research waste in atopic eczema trials—just the tip of the iceberg. J Invest Dermatol. 2016; 136: 1930-1933.

[54] Kim KH, Lee SH. The use of systematic reviews in the design of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture: a systematic review. Integr Med Res. 2015; 4: 39.

[55] Morgan B, Hejdenberg J, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Armstrong D. Do feasibility studies contribute to, or avoid, waste in research? PLoS One. 2018; 13:e0195951.

[56] Zheutlin AR, Niforatos J, Stulberg E, Sussman J. Research waste in randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 35: 3105-3107.

[57] Freshwater MF. Laboratory animal research published in plastic surgery journals in 2014 has extensive waste: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015; 68: 1485-1490.

[58] Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, et al. Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. J R Soc Med. 2020; 113: 433-443.

[59] Gaborit L, Park M, Raubenheimer K, et al. Selection criteria for Australian and New Zealand medical specialist training programs: another under-recognised driver of research waste. Med J Aust. 2022; 216: 594.

[60] Mercieca-Bebber R, Aiyegbusi OL, King MT, Brundage M, Snyder C, Calvert M. Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews. Qual Life Res. 2022; 31: 2939-2957.

[61] Hutton B, Wolfe D, Moher D, Shamseer L. Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews. Evid Based Ment Health. 2017; 20: 46-52.

[62] Dal Santo T, Rice DB, Amiri LSN, et al. Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 159: 225-234.

[63] Boutron I, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115: 2613-2619.

[64] Chalmers I, Altman DG. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999; 353: 490-493.

[65] Biccard BM, Rodseth RN. Taking an idea to a research protocol. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2014; 20: 14-18.

[66] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical Trials—registration 2023. Accessed December 8, 2023.

[67] Bentley C, Cressman S, van der Hoek K, Arts K, Dancey J, Peacock S. Conducting clinical trials-costs, impacts, and the value of clinical trials networks: a scoping review. Clin Trials. 2019; 16: 183-193.

[68] Albarqouni L, Elessi K, Abu-Rmeileh NME. A comparison between health research output and burden of disease in Arab countries: evidence from Palestine. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018; 16: 25.

[69] Minogue V, Wells B. Adding value, reducing research waste, the role of the NHS research and development management community. Int J Health Gov. 2018; 23: 160-177.

[70] Payne P, Lele O, Johnson B, Holve E. Enabling open science for health research: collaborative Informatics Environment for Learning on health Outcomes (CIELO). J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19: e276.

[71] Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020; 18: 1-13.

[72] Boyle P. Eurocan plus report: feasibility study for coordination of national cancer research activities. Ecancermedicalscience. 2008; 2: 84.

[73] Galipeau J, Moher D, Skidmore B, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol). Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 41.

[74] Arshi B, Wynants L, Rijnhart E, Reeve K, Cowley LE, Smits LJ. What proportion of clinical prediction models make it to clinical practice? Protocol for a two-track follow-up study of prediction model development publications. BMJ Open. 2023; 13:e073174.

[75] Ioannidis JPA. Perfect study, poor evidence: interpretation of biases preceding study design. Semin Hematol. 2008; 45: 160-166.

[76] Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4: 50.

[77] Collins G, Moher D, Ravaud P, Hoffmann T, Galsziou P, Bian Z, EQUATOR network—Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. n.d.

[78] Ioannidis JPA, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13:e1002264.

[79] Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ. 2018; 363:k4645.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.