Title |
Better prioritization to increase research value and decrease waste
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0492-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Agnes Dechartres, Philippe Ravaud |
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 17 | 44% |
United States | 3 | 8% |
Australia | 2 | 5% |
Japan | 1 | 3% |
Ireland | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
India | 1 | 3% |
France | 1 | 3% |
Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 22 | 56% |
Scientists | 10 | 26% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
Researcher | 4 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
Professor | 3 | 10% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 20% |
Unknown | 8 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
Psychology | 1 | 3% |
Other | 3 | 10% |
Unknown | 8 | 27% |