Reducing research waste through the standardisation of outcomes and definitions

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review

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.

Research integrity in clinical trials: innocent errors and spin versus scientific misconduct

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

High-quality research underpins the best healthcare practice. This article focuses on analyzing the current literature to promote research integrity across clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent admissions of questionable practices by researchers have undermined practitioner and public confidence. There is limited evidence specifically for ethical and professional standards in clinical trials to guide researchers and institutions to embed integrity into research practice.

SUMMARY

Unintentional errors and spin in research are not uncommon as training in design and conduct of clinical trials is not part of health education for medical and allied health professions. There is unfamiliarity with procedures, such as prospective registration, a priori documentation of statistical analysis plans, openness in data sharing, and so forth. This, combined with the academic culture of secrecy, has led to an environment where scientific suspicion, instead of trust, is the norm. Existing science integrity documents are devoid of specific recommendations about how to translate any guidance into clinical trial practice. There is a need for constructive, supportive and multidisciplinary approaches based on open dialogue and continuous training, targeting the research environment. Research integrity now needs to take centre stage to re-instill confidence in randomized trial evidence to inform clinical practice.

Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus

Objective

To develop a core outcome set for international burn research.

Design

Development and international consensus, from April 2017 to November 2019.

Methods

Candidate outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews. Through a Delphi survey, international clinicians, researchers, and UK patients prioritised outcomes. Anonymised feedback aimed to achieve consensus. Pre-defined criteria for retaining outcomes were agreed. A consensus meeting with voting was held to finalise the core outcome set.

Results

Data source examination identified 1021 unique outcomes grouped into 88 candidate outcomes. Stakeholders in round 1 of the survey, included 668 health professionals from 77 countries (18% from low or low middle income countries) and 126 UK patients or carers. After round 1, one outcome was discarded, and 13 new outcomes added. After round 2, 69 items were discarded, leaving 31 outcomes for the consensus meeting. Outcome merging and voting, in two rounds, with prespecified thresholds agreed seven core outcomes: death, specified complications, ability to do daily tasks, wound healing, neuropathic pain and itch, psychological wellbeing, and return to school or work.

Conclusions

This core outcome set caters for global burn research, and future trials are recommended to include measures of these outcomes.

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy and post partum are times of heightened risk for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and long-term morbidity. The current research aimed at improving health guidelines for women with pregnancy-associated VTE is limited by inconsistency in outcome reporting preventing comparison across studies, and lack of input from patients with respect to outcomes they propose are most important to measure. A suggested solution is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials and prospective studies. COSs function to facilitate data harmonisation and increase homogeneity in outcome reporting while incorporating the voice of women in this population in the planning of research to inform their ongoing care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of a COS for studies on pregnancy-associated VTE will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of the published literature will identify currently reported outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable. This will be followed by in-person interviews with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policy-makers to identify outcomes they consider important. Third, the long list of outcomes obtained from steps I and II will be condensed through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of relevant stakeholders including patients. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Lastly, to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, another literature review and Delphi process will be carried out as necessary.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB 18-0314-E). Study results will be published in open-access journals and presented at obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine and haematology conferences. All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019111479.