Search

Background: When reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews., Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey., Results: We collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky)., Conclusions: We discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs., Objectives: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy., Eligibility Criteria: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study., Sources of Evidence: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied., Charting Methods: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research., Results: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented., Conclusions That Relate to the Review Questions and Objectives: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study., Systematic Review Registration: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies., Methods: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework., Results: We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I 2 =87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously., Conclusion: Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based., Systematic Review Registration: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There are growing professional expectations for nurses to engage in and develop competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) due to opportunities for improved client and community outcomes and provision of the highest quality of care. However, EIDM is underdeveloped, with low implementation rates among nurses. The use of indicators to assess EIDM performance has potential to encourage nurses' engagement in EIDM through competence recognition and support assessment of strengths and competency gaps for individual nurses and organizations. Currently, the state of evidence regarding measures that assess EIDM competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, beliefs/values, behaviors) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review aims to address this gap through a narrative synthesis of the characteristics and psychometric properties of EIDM competence measures., Methods: The search strategy, developed in consultation with a Health Sciences Librarian, consists of online databases, contacting experts, hand searching reference lists, key journals, websites, conference proceedings, and grey literature. Studies will be included if the following criteria are met: (1) sample includes practicing nurses and data for nurses are reported separately; (2) conducted in any healthcare setting; (3) quantitative or mixed-methods design; (4) reports use or testing of a measure assessing EIDM competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, and/or behaviors); and (5) published in English. Screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers using a two-stage process: (1) title and abstract level; and (2) full-text level. Data extraction of study characteristics (e.g., sample, setting) will be conducted by a single reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Psychometric properties of acceptability, reliability, and validity evidence for each measure will be independently extracted by two reviewers. Data on measures will be synthesized narratively according to acceptability, number of validity evidence sources established, and reliability of scores. Data pertaining to population and healthcare setting will also be reported for each measure., Discussion: This systematic review will provide a current understanding about the state of evidence with respect to EIDM competence measures in nursing to assist in determining potentially relevant and robust measures for use in different nursing practice settings., Systematic Review Registration: Protocol registered in PROSPERO Registration #: CRD42018088754.