Waste in covid-19 research

Glasziou, Paul; Sanders, Sharon; Hoffmann, Tammy

doi:10.1136/bmj.m1847

Cited by 252 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To synthesise the considerable amount of primary research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic,7 a substantial number of systematic reviews have been produced, many of which have been prospectively registered on PROSPERO. There is growing concern that these include duplicate systematic reviews that have replicated without good reason.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite encouragement to check PROSPERO for similar systematic reviews and to not duplicate without good reason, PROSPERO administrators quickly raised the issue that multiple systematic reviews related to COVID-19, addressing the same research question, were being registered. Unnecessary duplication of research is wasteful and creates additional work for healthcare providers who need to make sense of evidence in a rapidly evolving field 7–9. Duplication can also cause confusion, if findings between reviews are inconsistent 2…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesDuring COVID-19, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) experienced a surge in registrations for COVID-19-related systematic reviews, and duplication of research questions became apparent. Duplication can waste funding, time and research effort and make policy making more difficult.This project explored the extent of and reasons for duplication of COVID-19-related systematic review registrations in PROSPERO during the pandemic.DesignRetrospective analysis of COVID-19-related registrations in PROSPERO, and a qualitative survey.SettingPROSPERO was searched for registrations related to four COVID-19 research areas: epidemiology, rehabilitation, transmission and treatments.MethodsRecords identified were compared using Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) elements of PROSPERO registration forms. Registrations with similar or identical PICOS were evaluated further as ‘duplicates’.Authors of ‘duplicate’ registrations were invited to complete a survey asking whether they searched PROSPERO prior to registration, identified similar reviews and, if so, why they continued with their review.Results1054 COVID-19 reviews were registered between March 2020 and January 2021, of which 138 were submitted when at least one similar protocol was already registered in PROSPERO. Duplication was greatest in reviews of COVID-19 treatments; for example, there were 14 similar reviews evaluating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.From 138 authors invited to take part in the survey, we received 41 responses. Most respondents said that they identified similar reviews when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration. Main reasons given for ‘duplication’ were differences in PICOS or planned analyses (n=13), poor quality of previous registrations (n=2) and the need to update evidence (n=3).ConclusionsThis research highlights that registration of similar and duplicate systematic reviews related to COVID-19 in PROSPERO occurred frequently. Awareness of research waste is required, and initial checking for similar reviews should be embedded within good review practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…INEP underlines the need for rigor in epidemiological studies to counteract pandemic-related research waste. 2 This waste has led to the retraction of an unusually high number of published scientific papers 3 and helped to erode the public's trust in health research and policy. For example, polls in the United States and United Kingdom suggest 25 to 30 percent of adults may refuse a vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 over concerns of rushed development and inadequate testing.…”

Section: The Role Of Epidemiologists In Sars-cov-2 and Covid-19 Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of epidemiologists in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Poor reporting is considered to be a contributing factor to the high proportion of avoidable clinical research waste [6,7], an issue that was estimated to affect up to 85% of all research prior to the COVID-19 pandemic [8]. It has been suggested that research waste increased during the pandemic for a number of reasons, including the rise in the widespread use of preprint servers to communicate COVID-19 related research findings, prior to journal peer review [9]. As COVID-19 swept the globe, the use of pre-print servers to disseminate research findings skyrocketed in an effort to mitigate against delays in the dissemination of research that traditional publications faced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As COVID-19 swept the globe, the use of pre-print servers to disseminate research findings skyrocketed in an effort to mitigate against delays in the dissemination of research that traditional publications faced. However, it was suggested that pre-prints prior to peer review led to irresponsible dissemination of flawed research, and to such poor reporting that a critical appraisal of the methodology and trustworthiness of results became difficult [9]. The vast number of pre-prints made public during the pandemic provides a unique opportunity to investigate whether these concerns are justified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%