ArticleBMC medicine2015
Better prioritization to increase research value and decrease waste.
Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Study of the strength of the evidence and the redundancy of the research on pharmacological treatment for Alzheimer's disease: a cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Social determinants of depression and suicidal behaviour in the Caribbean: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- Assessing rare disease understanding: a novel disease readiness level framework.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Mapping Chilean clinical research: a protocol for a scoping review and multiple evidence gap maps.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Prioritizing nurturing care at the municipal and district level with the Brazilian Early Childhood Friendly Municipal Index (IMAPI).Maternal & child nutrition · 2022Article
- Discrepancies between Conference Abstracts and Published Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery Studies: A Retrospective Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- Research utilization process model: A cyclical, spiral, and developmental process to provide conclusive research knowledge in health professions education.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Article
- Prioritising gender, equity, and human rights in a GRADE-based framework to inform future research on self care for sexual and reproductive health and rights.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- A beginner's guide to data stewardship and data sharing.Spinal cord · 2019Review
- The Use of (Network) Meta-Analysis in Clinical Oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Needs assessment and research priorities in the oral and dental health with health promotion approach in Iran.Journal of education and health promotion · 2019Article
- Developing a national dental education research strategy: priorities, barriers and enablers.BMJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.