Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research:a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users’ perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. CHARTING METHODS: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. RESULTS: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02096-y

Data for: Office concepts: A scoping review

These two documents are the supplementary materials for the study "Office concepts: A scoping review". The first document consists of the methodological details describing the charting done in the review. The second document consists of the raw data from the included studies in the review

Data for: Office concepts: A scoping review

These two documents are the supplementary materials for the study "Office concepts: A scoping review". The first document consists of the methodological details describing the charting done in the review. The second document consists of the raw data from the included studies in the review.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Southwest Norway at the Pleistocene/ Holocene Transition: Landscape Development, Colonization, Site Types, Settlement Patterns

This is an electronic version of an article published in the Norwegian Archaeological Review© 2003 Copyright Taylor & Francis; Norwegian Archaeological Review is available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293650307293.This article contributes a western Norwegian perspective to the ongoing debate on the timing and nature of the earliest colonization of northern Europe. Despite there being a theoretical possibility of Late Glacial settlement, currently available data indicate a populating of the area around the termination of the Pleistocene ca. 10,000 (uncalibrated) yr BP. The earliest radiocarbon date in southwest Norway so far, 9750 BP, is only a terminus ante quem. Environmental, economic, technological and social factors involved as a result of the colonization process are discussed briefly, and trends in the archaeological record are emphasized and commented on. The economy reflected by the first complete annual subsistence patterns is interpreted as having been logistically mobile, highly adaptive and generally of opportunistic character. Particular attention is paid to Early Preboreal coastal and inland settlement of the ‘Boknafjord’ and ‘Myrvatn/Fløyrlivatn’ groups, the latter characterized by well-preserved site structures such as tent rings and hearths providing high-resolution radiocarbon dates and palaeobotanical evidence

Additional file 4 of Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Additional file 4: The filled-in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist

Additional file 2 of Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Additional file 2: Appendix 1. Search June 2015

Additional file 3 of Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Additional file 3: Appendix 2. Search May 2021

Additional file 1 of Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Additional file 1: Additional Material 1. Figure showing number of studies published per year. Additional Material 2. Figure indicates the number of studies from each country, measured as the country affiliation of 1st authors. Additional Material 3. Metrics used in studies evaluating redundancy. N = Number of studies. The total number is higher than the actual number of studies evaluating redundancy, because most studies have used more than one metric. Additional Material 4. Table presenting the metrics used in studies evaluating the use of the EBR approach to minimise or avoid redundancy. N = Number of studies. The total number is higher than the actual number of studies evaluating the use of the EBR approach because most studies have used more than one metric. Additional Material 5. Bibliographic map, the M. Clarke group. Additional Material 6. Bibliographic map, the T.C. Chalmers group. Additional Material 7. Table listing the data materials used in the included studies. (Note that “Primary studies” include papers using various kinds of studies as data material, including some systematic reviews.) Fields marked in light green indicate several studies (6 or more), those in light red indicate few studies (5 or less), and those marked in red indicate no studies. The sum of studies evaluating redundancy/use of EBR approach is higher than the total number, because several studies have evaluated more than one research question. Also, one included paper evaluating the use of the EBR approach [8] used both primary studies and researchers as data material and was therefore counted twice in the table. Additional Material 8. Table listing study designs used in the included studies. Fields marked in light green indicate several studies (6 or more), those in light red indicate few studies (5 or less), and those marked in red indicate no studies. The sum of studies evaluating redundancy/use of EBR is higher than the total number, because several studies have evaluated more than one research question. Also, one included paper evaluating the use of the EBR approach [8] used both cross-sectional and another observational study designs and was therefore counted twice in the table. Additional Material 9. Table listing analysis methods used in the included studies. Fields marked in light green indicate several studies (6 or more), those in light red indicate few studies (5 or less), and those marked in red indicate no studies. Note that many of the included studies used more than one analysis method and investigated more than one research question. For that reason, studies are counted several times in the table, and their sum is much higher than the total number of included papers. Additional Material 10. Table presenting an overview of the different conclusions reported in the included studies. N = number of studies. Additional Material 11. Reference list of included studies

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Abstract Background Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. Objectives The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. Eligibility criteria Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users’ perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. Sources of evidence The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. Charting methods Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. Results We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. Conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectives Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Systematic review registration Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021)

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

Abstract Background Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. Objectives The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. Eligibility criteria Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users’ perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. Sources of evidence The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. Charting methods Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. Results We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. Conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectives Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Systematic review registration Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021)