The use of systematic reviews to justify orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional analysis

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.

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

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

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%], I2=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/.

Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to identify and synthesize the results from meta-research studies to determine whether and how authors of original studies in clinical health research use systematic reviews when designing new studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We included meta-research studies and primary outcome was the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to design their study. Risk of bias was assessed using an ad hoc created list of ten items. The results are presented both as a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. The use of a systematic review to inform the design of new clinical studies varied between 0% and 73%, with a mean percentage of 17%. The number of components of the design in which information from previous systematic reviews was used varied from three to eleven.

CONCLUSION

Clinical health research is characterized by variability regarding the extent to which systematic reviews are used to guide the design. An evidence-based research (EBR) approach towards research design when new clinical health studies are designed is necessary to decrease potential research redundancy and increase end-user value.

Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification?

CONTEXT

Considering the substantial increase in research funding in the field of urology, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. Systematic reviews (SRs) compile available evidence regarding a clinical question into a single critical resource. If properly utilized, SRs can help minimize redundant studies, focus attention to unsubstantiated treatments, and reduce research waste.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the use of SRs as justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in high impact urology journals, and to report the ways SRs were incorporated into RCT manuscripts published in the top four urology journals by h5 index.

METHODS

On December 13, 2019, a PubMed search was conducted for RCTs published in the top four urology journals according to the Google Scholar h5-index: European Urology, BJU International, The Journal of Urology, and Urology. For an article to be eligible for inclusion in this study, it must have been a full length RCT, published between November 30, 2014, and November 30, 2019 in one of the identified journals, reported only human subjects, and been accessible in English. The following data points were extracted independently by select investigators from each included RCT: manuscript title, year of publication, journal title, type of intervention (drug, medical device, procedure, other), funding source (government, hospital/university, industry, mixed) type of trial (parallel groups, crossover, cluster), and total number of participants reported in each RCT. The included RCTs were searched for reference to an SR, which was then recorded as "yes - verbatim," "yes - inferred," or "not used as justification" and the location in the manuscript where the SR was cited was recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 566 articles retrieved, 276 were included. Overall, 150 (54.3%) RCTs cited an SR as either verbatim (108; 39.1%) or inferred (42; 15.2%) trial justification, while 126 (45.7%) did not use an SR for RCT justification. Of those 126, 107 (84.9%) RCTs did not cite an SR to any extent. A significant association was noted between verbatim justification and type of intervention (x ²=20.23, p=0.017), with 18 of 31 (58.1%) "other" interventions (i.e. psychosocial intervention, exercise programs, and online therapy) having an SR cited as verbatim justification. Only 39 of 118 (33.1%) pharmaceutical trials referenced an SR as verbatim justification. Of 403 systematic review citations, 205 (50.8%) appeared in the Discussion section, while 15 (3.7%) were in the Methods section.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that RCTs published in four high impact urology journals inconsistently referenced an SR as justification and 39.1% of our entire sample did not reference an SR at all. These findings indicate that a divide exists between the instruction and implementation of evidence based medicine in the field of urology concerning RCTs published in the top four journals. Educating clinicians and researchers on the use of SR as justification for RCTs in urology may reduce research waste and increase the quality of RCTs in the field.