Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30305046›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation.

Mark J Bolland, Alison Avenell, Andrew Grey

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research Waste: Current Situation, Development, and Trends.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark J BollandBone and Joint Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. m.bolland@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0003-0465-2674
Alison AvenellHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, Scotland.
Andrew GreyBone and Joint Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type).

methodsWe examined 404 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of calcium intake (diet or supplements) and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture, and 547 RCTs of vitamin D supplements, and assessed the proportion of studies that used surrogate or clinical endpoints. For studies with BMD or fracture as an endpoint, we estimated when the 'tipping' point occurred indicating the need for RCTs with fracture as an endpoint (based on cumulative meta-analyses of BMD RCTs, and chronological review of observational studies), and whether each study published at least 5y after the tipping point was novel, added new clinical knowledge or was research waste.

resultsObservational studies of calcium intake and BMD or fracture outnumbered RCTs by 3.3-4.5 times. For both calcium intake and vitamin D supplements, studies using surrogate endpoints outnumbered studies using clinical endpoints by 1.6-3 times. Of 41 RCT publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1994, we considered that 19 (46%) lacked novelty, another 13 (32%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 30 (73%) were research waste. Of 204 observational study publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture, 197 (96%) lacked novelty, another 5 (2%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 202 (99%) were research waste. Of 39 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1999, 14 (36%) lacked novelty, another 13 (33%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 27 (69%) were research waste.

conclusionsA high proportion of studies of calcium intake since 2000 (95%) and trials of vitamin D supplements since 2005 (69%) on BMD or fracture represent research waste.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultBone DensityCalciumEndpoint DeterminationFractures, BoneHumansMedical WasteObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignVitamin DVitaminsCalciumMedical WasteVitamin DVitaminsBone densityCalcium intakeFractureObservational studiesRandomized controlled trialsResearch wasteSurrogate endpointsVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID30305046
PMCPMC6180413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.