The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
10
07
2019
accepted:
05
01
2020
revised:
23
10
2019
pubmed:
23
1
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
23
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Given the drastic increase in publication output in recent years, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. There are established areas of concern regarding research waste within ophthalmology along with a lack of systematic review usage to inform trial design in other areas of medicine. Given these concerns, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCT) in top ophthalmology and optometry journals. We searched PubMed on December 5, 2018 for RCTs published in one of the top five Google Scholar h-5 index journals within Ophthalmology and Optometry. We used a pilot-tested Google Form and searched each RCT for systematic reviews. Each systematic review was then given the designation of "verbatim", "inferred", or "not used as justification for conducting the RCT" based on the context the systematic review was used. Our analysis yielded 152 included phase III RCTs. We found 22.4% (34 of 152) of phase III ophthalmology clinical trials cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. A total of 102 systematic reviews were cited in the 152 RCTs. Fifty-seven of the one hundred fifty-two (37.5%) RCTs cited a systematic review somewhere in the manuscript. Less than one-quarter of phase III RCTs cited systematic reviews as justification for conducting the RCT. We believe placing a higher priority on justifying RCTs with systematic reviews would go a long way to minimizing research waste within ophthalmology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Given the drastic increase in publication output in recent years, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. There are established areas of concern regarding research waste within ophthalmology along with a lack of systematic review usage to inform trial design in other areas of medicine. Given these concerns, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCT) in top ophthalmology and optometry journals.
METHODS
We searched PubMed on December 5, 2018 for RCTs published in one of the top five Google Scholar h-5 index journals within Ophthalmology and Optometry. We used a pilot-tested Google Form and searched each RCT for systematic reviews. Each systematic review was then given the designation of "verbatim", "inferred", or "not used as justification for conducting the RCT" based on the context the systematic review was used.
RESULTS
Our analysis yielded 152 included phase III RCTs. We found 22.4% (34 of 152) of phase III ophthalmology clinical trials cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. A total of 102 systematic reviews were cited in the 152 RCTs. Fifty-seven of the one hundred fifty-two (37.5%) RCTs cited a systematic review somewhere in the manuscript.
CONCLUSION
Less than one-quarter of phase III RCTs cited systematic reviews as justification for conducting the RCT. We believe placing a higher priority on justifying RCTs with systematic reviews would go a long way to minimizing research waste within ophthalmology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31965083
doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0771-x
pii: 10.1038/s41433-020-0771-x
pmc: PMC7784999
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2041-2047Références
The U.S. National Library of Medicine. Citations added to MEDLINE® by fiscal year. 2007. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/stats/cit_added.html. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
Conte ML, Liu J, Schnell S, Omary MB. Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output. JCI Insight. 2017;2. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.95206 .
University of Rochester Medical Center. Study: era of rapid growth in biomedical research over. 2010. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/2736/study-era-of-rapid-growth-in-biomedical-research-over.aspx . Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1341–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181c3020d .
doi: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181c3020d
pubmed: 19935040
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Metin Gülmezoglu A, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1 .
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1
pubmed: 24411644
Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ. 2007;334:349–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68
pubmed: 17303884
pmcid: 1800999
Engelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Pain. 2018;22:1844–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1280 .
doi: 10.1002/ejp.1280
pubmed: 29978522
American Academy of Ophthalmology. About compendium—American academy of ophthalmology. https://www.aao.org/about-compendium. Accessed 28 June 2019.
Evans JR, Lawrenson JG. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000253.
Rosenthal R, Bucher HC, Dwan K. The use of systematic reviews when designing and reporting surgical trials. Ann Surg. 2017;265:e35–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001092 .
doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001092
pubmed: 28266978
Denniston AK, Holland GN, Kidess A, Nussenblatt RB, Okada AA, Rosenbaum JT, et al. Heterogeneity of primary outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatments for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:97.
doi: 10.1186/s13023-015-0318-6
Ismail R, Azuara-Blanco A, Ramsay CR. Consensus on outcome measures for glaucoma effectiveness trials: results from a delphi and nominal group technique approaches:: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET). 2016. http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/241. Accessed 11 Oct 2019.
Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet. 2010;376:20–1.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61045-8
Mahtani K. Systematic reviews to reduce research waste. BMJ EBM Spotlight. 2017. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2017/09/26/using-systematic-reviews-to-reduce-research-waste-who-really-cares/ . Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
De Meulemeester J, Fedyk M, Jurkovic L, Reaume M, Dowlatshahi D, Stotts G, et al. Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:20–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.027