Evidence available for patient-identified priorities in depression research: results of 11 rapid responses

Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review

Background

Research waste is present in all study designs and can have significant consequences for science, including reducing the reliability of research findings and contributing to the inefficient use of resources. Estimates suggest that as much as 85% of all biomedical research is wasted. However, it is uncertain how avoidable research waste is assessed in specific types of study designs and what methods could be used to examine different aspects of research waste. We aimed to investigate which methods, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews discussing research waste, have used to assess avoidable research waste.

Materials and Methods

We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework prospectively (https://osf.io/2fbp4). We searched PubMed and Embase with a 30-year limit (January 1993-August 2023). The concept examined was how research waste and related synonyms (e.g., unnecessary, redundant, duplicate, etc.) were assessed in reviews with a systematic search: systematic, scoping, or overviews of reviews. We extracted data on the method used in the review to examine for research waste and for which study design this method was applied.

Results

The search identified 4,285 records of which 93 reviews with systematic searches were included. The reviews examined a median of 90 (range 10-6,781) studies, where the study designs most commonly included were randomized controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). In the last ten years, the number of reports assessing research waste has increased. More than 50% of examined reviews reported evaluating methodological research waste among included studies, typically using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (n = 8) for randomized controlled trials or AMSTAR 1 or 2 (n = 12) for systematic reviews. One fourth of reviews assessed reporting guideline adherence to e.g., CONSORT (n = 4) for randomized controlled trials or PRISMA (n = 6) for systematic reviews.

Conclusion

Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and reporting guideline adherence when examining research waste. However, this scoping review revealed that a wide range of tools are used, which may pose difficulties in comparing examinations and performing meta-research. This review aids researchers in selecting methodologies and contributes to the ongoing discourse on optimizing research efficiency.

[Need for Action and Research in Psychosomatic and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation from the Point of View of Rehabilitants and Individuals who work in Rehabilitative Care]

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the need for practical action and research in psychosomatic and orthopaedic rehabilitation from the perspective of rehabilitants and individuals who work in rehabilitative care.

METHODS

The project was divided into an identification and a prioritization phase. In the identification phase, 3872 former rehabilitants, 235 employees from three rehabilitation clinics and 31 employees of the German Pension Insurance Oldenburg-Bremen (DRV OL-HB) were invited to participate in a written survey. The participants were asked to name relevant needs for action and research for psychosomatic and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The answers were evaluated qualitatively using an inductively developed coding system. Practical fields of action and research questions were formulated from the categories of the coding system. In the prioritization phase, the identified needs were ranked. For this purpose, 32 rehabilitants were invited to a prioritization workshop and 152 rehabilitants, 239 clinic employees and 37 employees of the DRV OL-HB to a two-round written Delphi survey. The resulting prioritized lists from both methods were combined into a top 10 list.

RESULTS

In the identification phase, 217 rehabilitants, 32 clinic employees and 13 employees of the DRV OL-HB participated in the survey, in the prioritization phase, 75 rehabilitants, 33 clinic employees and 8 employees of the DRV OL-HB in both survey rounds of the Delphi survey, and 11 rehabilitants in the prioritization workshop. A need for practical action primarily in the implementation of holistic and individual rehabilitation, in quality assurance and in the education and participation of rehabilitants was identified, as also a need for research primarily on access to rehabilitation, structures in the rehabilitation setting (e. g., inter-agency cooperation), the design of rehabilitative interventions (more individualized, more suitable for everyday life), and the motivation of rehabilitants.

CONCLUSION

The identified needs for action and research include many topics that have already been identified as problems in previous research projects and by various actors in rehabilitation. In the future, there needs to be increased focus on the development of strategies for dealing with and solving the identified needs, as well as on the implementation of these strategies.

Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland – Eine systematische Analyse von Publikationen der physioscience der letzten 10 Jahre

Hintergrund Forschungsprioritäten können dazu beitragen, Evidenz in den Bereichen zu entwickeln, die für Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen am wichtigsten sind. Forschungsprioritäten werden jedoch in der biomedizinischen Forschung nur unzureichend berücksichtigt.

Ziel Beschreibung der Berücksichtigung von Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland.

Methode Analyse von physiotherapeutischen Berichten aus Deutschland, die zwischen 2011 und 2020 in der Fachzeitschrift physioscience publiziert wurden. Für jeden eingeschlossenen Bericht wurde die primäre Forschungsfrage und/oder der Hauptgegenstandsbereich identifiziert und, falls möglich, einem spezifischen Gesundheitszustand zugeordnet. Danach wurde für jeden Bericht geprüft, ob eine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität (von der James Lind Alliance oder aus wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken) bzw. eine der Top 26 der physiotherapiespezifischen Forschungsprioritäten des britischen Berufsverbandes „The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP)“ aus 2018 adressiert wurde. Die Datenanalyse erfolgte deskriptiv.

Ergebnisse Es konnten 78 Berichte in die Analyse eingeschlossen werden. Die häufigsten Studientypen waren Übersichtsarbeiten (17/78, 22 %), Beobachtungsstudien (16/78, 21 %) und Umfragen (13/78, 17 %). Für die Analyse der gesundheitszustandsspezifischen Forschungsprioritäten konnten 51 Berichte berücksichtigt werden. In 51 % dieser Berichte (26/51) wurde eine der 10 wichtigsten Forschungsprioritäten des jeweiligen Themengebiets adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde keine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität berücksichtigt (13/51, 25 %) oder die Priorität gehörte nicht zu den Top Ten (12/51, 24 %).

Für die Analyse der physiotherapeutischen Forschungsprioritäten wurden alle 78 Berichte berücksichtigt. In 21 % dieser Berichte (16/78) wurde eine Top-Ten-Priorität adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde eine weniger wichtige Priorität adressiert (Listenplatz 11–26; 25/78, 32 %) oder das Forschungsthema des Berichts gehörte nicht zu den Top 26 (37/78, 47 %).

Schlussfolgerung Die vorliegende Studie liefert erste Hinweise darauf, dass Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland nur unzureichend berücksichtigt werden. Ein erheblicher Teil der Forschung scheint somit an den Bedürfnissen von Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen vorbeizugehen. Die Berücksichtigung existierender Forschungsprioritäten und die Entwicklung nationaler Forschungsprioritäten für die Physiotherapie in Deutschland könnten dazu beitragen, den Nutzen der physiotherapeutischen Forschung für die öffentliche Gesundheit zu vergrößern.