Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35312956›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question.

Nancy E Mayo, Nikki Ow, Miho Asano, Sorayya Askari, Ruth Barclay, Sabrina Figueiredo, Melanie Hawkins, Stanley Hum, Mehmet Inceer, Navaldeep Kaur and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Research Waste.Contemporary clinical dentistry
    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

14 authors.

Nancy E MayoSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Geriatrics, Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada. nancy.mayo@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2066-7120
Nikki OwOccupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Foundry Central Office, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1684-8052
Miho AsanoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4600-056X
Sorayya AskariSchool of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-5762
Ruth BarclayDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2961-5821
Sabrina FigueiredoDepartment of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Melanie HawkinsCentre for Global Health and Equity, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5704-0490
Stanley HumBrain Health Outcomes Platform, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
Mehmet InceerSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2594-9760
Navaldeep KaurDepartment of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-1506
Ayse KuspinarSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3886-0407
Kedar K V MateCentre for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0027-846X
Ana Maria MogaSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3653-0228
Maryam MozafariniaDivision of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6498-9469

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStrongly framed research questions are clear as to the population (P), the exposures or interventions (E/I), comparison groups (C), outcomes (O), time when relevant (T), and what the investigator wants to know. A solid framework sets up the measurement model, analysis, and anticipated results. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which research questions in journals that focused on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and quality of life (QOL) are clear.

methodsAll 440 research articles published in four PROM journals in 2020. excluding reviews, psychometric, and qualitative papers, were reviewed. Research questions were classified as: (i) adequately framed (ii) poorly framed; or (iii) unframed based on clarity criteria. Examples from each journal were presented and reframed to match results in the article.

resultsOf 440 articles, 195 (44.3%) were classified as adequately framed; 230 (52.2%) as poorly framed; and 15 (3.4%) as unframed. There was heterogeneity across journals (Chi-square: 20.8; 6 df; p = 0.002). Only 29% were framed according to what the investigators wanted to know; 72% were framed like a "to do" list; and 6% were framed as a research agenda.

conclusionAlmost half of the questions were poorly framed or unframed a practice that could contribute to research wastage. Even "adequately framed" questions rarely stated what they wanted to know a priori, increasing the risk of biased reporting. Researchers, reviewers, and editors should encourage the use established frameworks for research questions.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeHumansPsychometricsMethodologyPatient-reported outcome measuresQuality of lifeResearch questionResearch wastage

Identifiers

PMID35312956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.