Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences
Abstract
Introduction: The issue of research waste has been raised due to the fact that 85% of funding for biomedical research has been improperly utilized. A prominent issue is the frequency of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted without prior consultation of existing support, such as systematic reviews (SRs). Meticulous monitoring is necessary to ensure that clinical recommendations are being made with confidence in high-quality biomedical practices. The aim of this study was to survey Obstetric and Gynecology journals to analyze their published articles for citation of SR for justification of conducting the RCT.Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017, in the top ten Obstetric and Gynecology journals. Each included study was evaluated to determine the number of SRs cited within the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. We further analyzed whether the SR was cited verbatim or indirectly, number of participants, type of intervention being studied, funding source, type of trial, and how the outcome was perceived.Results: Of the 720 articles from our initial search, 458 (63.61%) met inclusion criteria. Of the 458 included studies, 279 (60.92%) cited an SR in the introduction, 34 (7.42%) cited an SR in the methods, and 207 (45.2%) cited an SR in the discussion as justification for conducting the study.Conclusion: A large portion of the RCTs being published in clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology journals are not citing SRs as justification for conducting their studies, which may be leading to an increase in research waste
