Better prioritization to increase research value and decrease waste

BMC Medicine

Philippe Ravaud²  Agnes Dechartres¹ 

[1]French Cochrane Centre, Paris, France

[2]Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

关键词: Waste;    Research agenda;    Planning;    Knowledge gaps;    Randomized controlled trials;   

Others  :  1228318
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0492-3

 received in 2015-09-10, accepted in 2015-09-17,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

In a recent study published in BMC Medicine, Singh Ospina and colleagues outlined the important gaps between ongoing research and research needs in the field of endocrinology. Many recommendations from clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, thereby resulting in research gaps. Despite the publication of around 25,000 randomized controlled trials each year, ongoing research does not cover most of these gaps. In contrast, trials are planned when sufficient data are already available for decision making, which results in redundant research and exposes patients to unnecessary risks. This lack of prioritization contributes to the enormous problem of waste in research. A systematic approach to accumulate the available body of evidence is necessary to determine when we have sufficient evidence and when we have knowledge gaps, defined as research questions with no or a low level of evidence available. Systematic registration of research gaps and their prioritization may help to organize future research. Some initiatives exist, but they need to be generalized.

Please see related research: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/187

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Dechartres and Ravaud.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374:86-9.
• [2]Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, Macleod M, Wisely J, Chalmers I. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014; 383:176-85.
• [3]Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383:156-65.
• [4]Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014; 383:257-66.
• [5]Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383:267-76.
• [6]Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383:166-75.
• [7]Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014; 383:101-4.
• [8]Emdin CA, Odutayo A, Hsiao AJ, Shakir M, Hopewell S, Rahimi K, Altman DG. Association between randomised trial evidence and global burden of disease: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials--ESORT). BMJ. 2015; 350:h117.
• [9]Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, Gunaratnam Y, McDonald JW, Foster C. The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer. 2007; 96:875-81.
• [10]Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000; 355:2037-40.
• [11]Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Swiglo BA, Isley WL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008; 299:2543-9.
• [12]Estellat C, Ravaud P. Lack of head-to-head trials and fair control arms: randomized controlled trials of biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172:237-44.
• [13]Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Biologic agents in rheumatology: unmet issues after 200 trials and $200 billion sales. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013; 9:665-73.
• [14]Jones AP, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Clarke M, Gamble C. The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Singh Ospina N, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Brito JP, Young WF, Montori VM. Is the endocrine research pipeline broken? A systematic evaluation of the Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines and trial registration. BMC Med. 2015; 13:187. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Hazlehurst JM, Armstrong MJ, Sherlock M, Rowe IA, O’Reilly MW, Franklyn JA, Stewart PM, Tomlinson JW. A comparative quality assessment of evidence-based clinical guidelines in endocrinology. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2013; 78:183-90.
• [17]Lee DH, Vielemeyer O. Analysis of overall level of evidence behind Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171:18-22.
• [18]Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 2009; 301:831-41.
• [19]Heath I. Who’s complacent now? The King’s Fund on general practice. BMJ. 2011; 342:d2254.
• [20]Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford; 2011. Accessed 23 Sept 2015. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
• [21]UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (UK DUETs). Accessed 23 Sept 2015. http://www. library.nhs.uk/duets/ webcite
• [22]Chang SM, Carey TS, Kato EU, Guise JM, Sanders GD. Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:439-45.