Birgitte Nørgaard1, Eva Draborg2, Jane Andreasen3, Carsten Bogh Juhl4, Jennifer Yost5, Klara Brunnhuber6, Karen A Robinson7, Hans Lund8. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: binorgaard@health.sdu.dk. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark and Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark and Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, University of Copenhagen Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark. 5. M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, Villanova University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Digital Content Services, Elsevier, London, UK. 7. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. 8. Department of Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify and synthesize the results from meta-research studies to determine whether and how authors of original studies in clinical health research use systematic reviews when designing new studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We included meta-research studies and primary outcome was the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to design their study. Risk of bias was assessed using an ad hoc created list of ten items. The results are presented both as a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. The use of a systematic review to inform the design of new clinical studies varied between 0% and 73%, with a mean percentage of 17%. The number of components of the design in which information from previous systematic reviews was used varied from three to 11. CONCLUSION: Clinical health research is characterized by variability regarding the extent to which systematic reviews are used to guide the design. An evidence-based research (EBR) approach towards research design when new clinical health studies are designed is necessary to decrease potential research redundancy and increase end-user value.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify and synthesize the results from meta-research studies to determine whether and how authors of original studies in clinical health research use systematic reviews when designing new studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We included meta-research studies and primary outcome was the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to design their study. Risk of bias was assessed using an ad hoc created list of ten items. The results are presented both as a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. The use of a systematic review to inform the design of new clinical studies varied between 0% and 73%, with a mean percentage of 17%. The number of components of the design in which information from previous systematic reviews was used varied from three to 11. CONCLUSION: Clinical health research is characterized by variability regarding the extent to which systematic reviews are used to guide the design. An evidence-based research (EBR) approach towards research design when new clinical health studies are designed is necessary to decrease potential research redundancy and increase end-user value.
Authors: Eva Draborg; Jane Andreasen; Birgitte Nørgaard; Carsten Bogh Juhl; Jennifer Yost; Klara Brunnhuber; Karen A Robinson; Hans Lund Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-05