Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review
Authors: Lund Hans , Robinson Karen A. , Gjerland Ane Kjellaug Brekke , Nykvist Hanna , Drachen Thea Marie , Christensen Robin , Juhl Carsten Bogh , Jamtvedt Gro , Nortvedt Monica Wammen , Bjerrum Merete , Westmore Matthew , Yost Jennifer , Brunnhuber Klara 
Published: June 2022

BackgroundSeveral 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.ObjectivesThe 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 criteriaMeta-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 evidenceThe 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 methodsCharting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.ResultsWe 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 (0.01%) 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 9 health domains, and only two of 13 research topics were represented. Thus, a large proportion of both health specialties and research topics has not been evaluated for the presence of redundancy. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of 9 health domains, and only one of 13 research topics were represented.Conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectivesEven 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 for trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study.Protocol registration: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).