Abstract
Introduction: Some have estimated billions of dollars each year are lost to health research worldwide. Given the increased amount of research being funded in the field of urology, reducing the amount of research waste is vital. Systematic reviews (SRs) are an essential tool in aiding in reducing waste in research; they are a comprehensive summary of the current data on a clinical question. The aim of this study is to determine the use of SRs as justification in conducting new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in high impact urology journals.
Methods: On December 13, 2019, one of us (BJ) conducted a PubMed search for RCTs published from 2014 to 2019 in the top four urology journals according to their Google Scholar h5-index. Using a masked data extraction process each randomized controlled trials was searched for SRs. Then each review was evaluated for if it was justification for conducting the trial based on the context the SR was used.
Results: Our search returned 566 articles, 276 were included. Overall 61.2% (169/276) the included trials cited a SR though 46.0% (127/276) of the included studies did not cite a SR as justification for conducting the trial. A significant association between verbatim justification and type of intervention (x2=20.23, p=0.017) with 58.1% of 'other' having a SRs verbatim justification, but only 33.1% (39/118) of drug trials having SRs verbatim justification was noted.
Conclusion: Less than half of the included RCTs published in the top four urology journals cited a SR as justification for conducting the trial. If new trials were required to support their studies with SRs we believe this would greatly reduce the amount of research waste within clinical research. This effort should be addressed by funders and the leading journals within the field of urology.
Funding: N/A
Methods: On December 13, 2019, one of us (BJ) conducted a PubMed search for RCTs published from 2014 to 2019 in the top four urology journals according to their Google Scholar h5-index. Using a masked data extraction process each randomized controlled trials was searched for SRs. Then each review was evaluated for if it was justification for conducting the trial based on the context the SR was used.
Results: Our search returned 566 articles, 276 were included. Overall 61.2% (169/276) the included trials cited a SR though 46.0% (127/276) of the included studies did not cite a SR as justification for conducting the trial. A significant association between verbatim justification and type of intervention (x2=20.23, p=0.017) with 58.1% of 'other' having a SRs verbatim justification, but only 33.1% (39/118) of drug trials having SRs verbatim justification was noted.
Conclusion: Less than half of the included RCTs published in the top four urology journals cited a SR as justification for conducting the trial. If new trials were required to support their studies with SRs we believe this would greatly reduce the amount of research waste within clinical research. This effort should be addressed by funders and the leading journals within the field of urology.
Funding: N/A
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 322 |
| State | Published - 2 Oct 2021 |
| Event | Annual Meeting of the South Central Section of the AUA - Scottsdale, Arizona Duration: 29 Sep 2021 → 2 Oct 2021 |
Conference
| Conference | Annual Meeting of the South Central Section of the AUA |
|---|---|
| City | Scottsdale, Arizona |
| Period | 29/09/21 → 2/10/21 |