ArticlePeerJ2024
Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recalibrating evidence hierarchies in populous low- and middle-income countries: Opportunity cost, epistemic alignment, and the overproduction of systematic reviews.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Review
- Experience sampling methods require more than numbers.Communications psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research waste is present in all study designs and can have significant consequences for science, including reducing the reliability of research findings and contributing to the inefficient use of resources. Estimates suggest that as much as 85% of all biomedical research is wasted. However, it is uncertain how avoidable research waste is assessed in specific types of study designs and what methods could be used to examine different aspects of research waste. We aimed to investigate which methods, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews discussing research waste, have used to assess avoidable research waste. Materials and Methods: We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework prospectively (https://osf.io/2fbp4). We searched PubMed and Embase with a 30-year limit (January 1993-August 2023). The concept examined was how research waste and related synonyms ( Results: The search identified 4,285 records of which 93 reviews with systematic searches were included. The reviews examined a median of 90 (range 10-6,781) studies, where the study designs most commonly included were randomized controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). In the last ten years, the number of reports assessing research waste has increased. More than 50% of examined reviews reported evaluating methodological research waste among included studies, typically using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools ( Conclusion: Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and reporting guideline adherence when examining research waste. However, this scoping review revealed that a wide range of tools are used, which may pose difficulties in comparing examinations and performing meta-research. This review aids researchers in selecting methodologies and contributes to the ongoing discourse on optimizing research efficiency.
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.