ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research Waste: Current Situation, Development, and Trends.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 20th century, the rapid increase in academic publications has turned research waste into a significant challenge in scientific research. However, there is currently no comprehensive bibliometric analysis available to evaluate the progress in this field. In this study, we retrieved all relevant articles published between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2024, from the Web of Science (WoS) database, yielding a total of 876 articles. Various tools, including CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R-bibliometrix, were employed for comprehensive analysis. The results revealed that these articles collectively received 39 768 citations, with an average of 45.4 citations per paper. Both the number of published articles and the growth rate saw a rapid increase after 2014. The United States and the England emerged as the leading countries in research output. A keyword analysis identified 3 main themes: (1) the types of trials where research waste is most prevalent, (2) the primary factors contributing to research waste in trials, and (3) strategies to mitigate research waste. Notably, the experimental design phase has been identified as the primary source of research waste. Additionally, research waste was most prevalent in internal medicine, followed by surgery and pediatrics. Through these analyses, we provide valuable insights into the characteristics of research waste over the past 2 decades, highlighting an increased focus on this issue in the future.
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.