Search

Background: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs., Objectives: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy., Eligibility Criteria: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study., Sources of Evidence: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied., Charting Methods: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research., Results: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented., Conclusions That Relate to the Review Questions and Objectives: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study., Systematic Review Registration: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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%], I 2 =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/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions., Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication date and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias assessment will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA., Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, awaiting registration.

Background: A comprehensive overview of treatments of common fractures is missing, although it would be important for shared decision-making in clinical practice. The aim was to determine benefits and harms of surgical compared to non-surgical treatments for traumatic skeletal fractures., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until November 2018, for randomized trials of surgical treatment in comparison with or in addition to non-surgical treatment of fractures in adults. For harms, only trials with patient enrollment in 2000 or later were included, while no time restriction was applied to benefits. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from full-text trials, and performed risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were self-reported pain, function, and quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Random effects model (Hedges' g) was used., Results: Out of 28375 records screened, we included 61 trials and performed meta-analysis on 12 fracture types in 11 sites: calcaneus, clavicula, femur, humerus, malleolus, metacarpus, metatarsus, radius, rib, scaphoideum, and thoraco-lumbar spine. Seven other fracture types only had one trial available. For distal radius fractures, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, n = 378 participants) for function, favoring surgery, however, with greater risk of SAEs (RR = 3.10 (1.42 to 6.77), n = 436). For displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures, SMD was 0.64 (0.13 to 1.16) for function (n = 244) and 0.19 (0.01 to 0.36) for quality of life (n = 506) favoring surgery. Surgery was associated with a smaller risk of SAE than non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (RR = 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92), n = 1394). None of the other comparisons showed statistical significance differences and insufficient data existed for most of the common fracture types., Conclusions: Of 12 fracture types with more than one trial, only two demonstrated a difference in favor of surgery (distal radius fractures and displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures), one of which demonstrated a greater risk of harms in the surgical group (distal radius fractures). Our results highlight the current paucity of high-quality randomized trials for common fracture types and a considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in several of the available trials., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015020805.

Objective: The use of physical activity monitors (PAMs) in the adult population is increasing rapidly and previous systematic reviews are outdated. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the effect of PAM-based interventions on physical activity behavior in adults. Furthermore, the impact of intervention, study, and participants characteristics will be investigated., Methods and Design: Randomized controlled trials and randomized cross-over trials including adult participants will be included if the study compares any PAM-based intervention where the participants receive feedback on their physical activity level measured by PAMs, to control interventions where participants do not receive feedback from PAMs. This protocol is detailed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and it is reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols statement. The results from the literature search will be presented in a PRISMA flow chart. The effects from individual studies will be summarized in a random effects meta-analysis and the impact of diagnosis of the participants, type of feedback, type of intervention, and control intervention will be investigated in stratified meta-analysis and meta-regressions analysis. The results on daily physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, sedentary time, and adverse events will be presented in a summary of findings table., Discussion: The results will be useful to researchers, policy makers, and health care professionals when the intention is to increase physical activity in the adult population., Prospero Registration: CRD42018102719.

Background: To investigate the use of physical activity monitors (PAMs) for the elderly, the scientific literature should be systematically reviewed and the effect quantified, as the evidence seems inconclusive., Methods and Design: Randomized controlled trials and randomized crossover trials, with participants with a mean age above 65 years, comparing any PAM intervention with other control interventions or no intervention, will be included. This protocol is detailed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and it is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols statement., Results: We will present results from the search in a flow diagram. The results from the analyses will include regular meta-analyses, stratified analyses, and meta-regressions. The results on each outcome of interest will be presented in a summary of findings table., Discussion: This paper will explore and analyze the heterogeneity of the results and try to identify variables that will enhance the effect of PAMs in elderly. The results will be useful to researchers working with elderly and/or PAMs, health care professionals working with elderly, and relatives together with the elderly themselves., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018083648 .