Analysis of the use of systematic reviews to justify otolaryngology clinical trials - Is research being wasted?

Objective of Research: Avoiding poor research methodology such as research waste through duplicative research certainly provides a more cost effective approach to achieving high quality methodologic studies. The purpose of our study is to explore the level of adherence to guidelines and where a literature search was incorporated and documented SRs were used as justification for conducting a RCT and the amount of research waste as a consequence.

Methods and Results: We performed a meta-epidemiological cross-sectional study of RCTs published in top peer reviewed otorhinolaryngological journals according to Google Scholar Metrics. Data points extracted whether or not a study cited a systematic review. We recorded whether or not that study used the cited systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. Of the 304 articles retrieved, 151 were included. Overall, only 58.3% (88/151) of studies referenced a SR while shockingly, 41.7% (63/151) articles did not reference at all a systematic review. Possibly even more alarming is the fact that only 27% (24/88) that did cite at least one SR mentioned the SR as justification for conducting the trial and only 17% (15/88) of studies cited verbatim that a SR implicated the need for a RCT to further gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion: Based off of our findings, we recommend that efforts be taken to reduce research waste by using SRs and meta-analysis as justification for conducting RCTs.