TY - JOUR
T1 - Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine
T2 - A scoping review
AU - Rosengaard, Louise Olsbro
AU - Andersen, Mikkel Zola
AU - Rosenberg, Jacob
AU - Fonnes, Siv
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PY - 2024/6
Y1 - 2024/6
N2 - Background: The 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. Methods: In 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. Results: Based 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. Conclusion: MINUS 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.
AB - Background: The 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. Methods: In 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. Results: Based 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. Conclusion: MINUS 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.
KW - biomedical research
KW - evidence gaps
KW - evidence-based medicine
KW - research waste
KW - review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85194477819&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jebm.12616
DO - 10.1111/jebm.12616
M3 - Review
C2 - 38798014
AN - SCOPUS:85194477819
SN - 1756-5383
VL - 17
SP - 351
EP - 359
JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
IS - 2
ER -