Reducing research waste through the standardisation of outcomes and definitions

Rogozińska, Ewelina; Eckert, L. A.; Khan, Khalid S.

doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15238

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of flawed techniques may be considered as 'study limitations' or 'risk of bias or referred to as problems with 'internal validity'. They can relate to statistics, failure to focus studies on core outcomes, to the conduct of the study and distort or misrepresent the results of an RCT [31,32]. The Declaration of Helsinki states that 'Authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports' [33].…”

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct

Núñez-Núñez

Andrews

Fawzy

et al. 2022

Current Opinion in Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewHigh-quality research underpins the best healthcare practice. This article focuses on analyzing the current literature to promote research integrity across clinical trials. Recent findingsRecent admissions of questionable practices by researchers have undermined practitioner and public confidence. There is limited evidence specifically for ethical and professional standards in clinical trials to guide researchers and institutions to embed integrity into research practice.

show abstract

Section: Key Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct

Núñez-Núñez

Andrews

Fawzy

et al. 2022

Current Opinion in Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In turn, the inclusion of COS in future research has the potential to decrease research waste while allowing stronger conclusions to improve the health of women and infants. 30 Thus, the objective of this protocol is to facilitate the development of a COS for studies addressing pregnancyassociated VTE (COSPVenTE), for use in relevant future trials and observational studies. Outcomes relevant to studies of prevention of VTE will be listed separately from those on management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In turn, the inclusion of COS in future research has the potential to decrease research waste while allowing stronger conclusions to improve the health of women and infants. 30 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPregnancy and post partum are times of heightened risk for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and long-term morbidity. The current research aimed at improving health guidelines for women with pregnancy-associated VTE is limited by inconsistency in outcome reporting preventing comparison across studies, and lack of input from patients with respect to outcomes they propose are most important to measure. A suggested solution is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials and prospective studies. COSs function to facilitate data harmonisation and increase homogeneity in outcome reporting while incorporating the voice of women in this population in the planning of research to inform their ongoing care.Methods and analysisThe development of a COS for studies on pregnancy-associated VTE will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of the published literature will identify currently reported outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable. This will be followed by in-person interviews with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policy-makers to identify outcomes they consider important. Third, the long list of outcomes obtained from steps I and II will be condensed through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of relevant stakeholders including patients. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Lastly, to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, another literature review and Delphi process will be carried out as necessary.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB 18-0314-E). Study results will be published in open-access journals and presented at obstetrics, maternal–fetal medicine and haematology conferences. All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019111479.

show abstract

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Rosengaard,

Andersen,

Rosenberg

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsBased 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.ConclusionMINUS 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.

show abstract

Reducing research waste through the standardisation of outcomes and definitions

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About