The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKhalil, H.
dc.contributor.authorPeters, M.D.J.
dc.contributor.authorMcInerney, P.A.
dc.contributor.authorGodfrey, C.M.
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, L.
dc.contributor.authorEvans, C.
dc.contributor.authorPieper, D.
dc.contributor.authorMoraes, E.B.
dc.contributor.authorTricco, A.C.
dc.contributor.authorMunn, Z.
dc.contributor.authorPollock, D.
dc.date.issued2022
dc.descriptionPublished online 27 September 2022
dc.description.abstract<h4>Objectives</h4>Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research.<h4>Results</h4>The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste.<h4>Conclusion</h4>To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityHanan Khalil, Micah D.J. Peters, Patricia A. McInerney, Christina M. Godfrey, Lyndsay Alexander, Catrin Evans, Dawid Pieper, Erica B. Moraes, Andrea C. Tricco, Zachary Munn, Danielle Pollock
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2022; 152:30-35
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.012
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.identifier.issn1878-5921
dc.identifier.orcidPeters, M.D.J. [0000-0002-1108-3783]
dc.identifier.orcidMunn, Z. [0000-0002-7091-5842]
dc.identifier.orcidPollock, D. [0000-0002-6604-0609]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/136803
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1195676
dc.rightsCrown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.012
dc.subjectmethodology
dc.subjectquality
dc.subjectreporting
dc.subjectresearch waste
dc.subjectScoping reviews
dc.titleThe role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Nursing publications