35 research outputs found

    Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science:A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study. METHODS: Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/). RESULTS: Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%). CONCLUSION: Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals

    Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results-a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. RESULTS: We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I(2)=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers’ use of prior research systematically and transparently—also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02062-8

    Dokumentationsrapport Spørgeskemaundersøgelse Nyorganisering af organdonation i Region Syddanmark

    No full text
    Mange menneskers liv eller livskvalitet afhænger af muligheden for at kunne modtage et organ fra et andet menneske, men antallet af tilgængelige organer svarer langt fra til efterspørgslen. Både i Danmark og i andre lande har man forsøgt forskellige initiativer til at reducere denne forskel. Det har både drejet sig om at øge antallet af personer, som er villige til at afgive organer, om at ændre på kravene til mulige organdonorer og organer og på den måde øge antallet af mulige donorer samt at forbedre udnyttelsen af de foreliggende donorer. Gennem de seneste år er forskellige initiativer rettet mod andre faktorer med betydning for gennemførelsen af organdonationer, og fokus er her lagt på de organisatoriske faktorer i forbindelse med organdonationer. Projektet her omhandler en evaluering af en ny-organisering af organdonationsområdet i Region Syddanmark, og det er et del-projekt af et større organisatorisk projekt på landsplan, hvor målet for tre ny-etablerede regionale organdonationskorps er, at de på hver deres egen måde skal udvikle og afprøve en regionalt tilpasset organisationsform. Det endelige mål for alle tre regionale organdonationskorps er at øge antallet af organdonationer. Det samlede organisationsændringsprojekt udspringer fra Dansk Center for Organdonation (DCO), som er en ny-etableret central enhed fra 2007, der har til formål at koordinere, udvikle og fremme organdonationer i Danmark. DCO har initieret det regionale projekt i Region Syddanmark og har finansieret projektet og de tilknyttede donationsaktiviteter i en indledende fase fra september 2008 til februar 2010, hvorefter en evaluering skal kortlægge projektets grad af målopfyldelse samt komme med anbefalinger til videre tiltag på området. Projektet gennemføres af en projektgruppe bestående projektleder, neurokirurg, overlæge Jane Linnet, anæstesiolog, overlæge Karsten Bülow, transplantationskoordinator, sygeplejerske Annette Boe, nøgleperson, sygeplejerske Mette Bruun Mortensen alle Odense Universitetshospital samt lektor Eva Draborg, Institut for Sundhedstjenesteforskning - Sundhedsøkonomi, Syddansk Universitet. Nærværende rapport udgør dokumentationen fra den første videns-, holdnings-, erfarings- og kompetenceafdækkende fase af projektet, hvor resultaterne fra en spørgeskemaundersøgelse præsenteres. Formålet med dokumentationsrapporten er at formidle de rå observerede fordelinger på alle spørgsmålene i spørgeskemaet, så de umiddelbare resultater hurtigt bliver gjort tilgængelige for projektet og andre med interesse herfor. Efter projektafslutning i februar 2010 gennemføres en opfølgende spørgeskemaundersøgelse, således at en afdækning af forskelle i de relevante variable og indikatorer på organdonationsområdet i projektperioden i Region Syddanmark synliggøres. I version 2 af rapporten fra maj 2010 er der foretaget enkelte korrektioner i tabel 1, 2, 3 og 4 side 20, 22 og 23.Survey

    Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide

    No full text
    corecore