How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
Affiliations
- PMID: 24411644
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set
Iain Chalmers et al. Lancet. 2014.
Abstract
The increase in annual global investment in biomedical research--reaching US$240 billion in 2010--has resulted in important health dividends for patients and the public. However, much research does not lead to worthwhile achievements, partly because some studies are done to improve understanding of basic mechanisms that might not have relevance for human health. Additionally, good research ideas often do not yield the anticipated results. As long as the way in which these ideas are prioritised for research is transparent and warranted, these disappointments should not be deemed wasteful; they are simply an inevitable feature of the way science works. However, some sources of waste cannot be justified. In this report, we discuss how avoidable waste can be considered when research priorities are set. We have four recommendations. First, ways to improve the yield from basic research should be investigated. Second, the transparency of processes by which funders prioritise important uncertainties should be increased, making clear how they take account of the needs of potential users of research. Third, investment in additional research should always be preceded by systematic assessment of existing evidence. Fourth, sources of information about research that is in progress should be strengthened and developed and used by researchers. Research funders have primary responsibility for reductions in waste resulting from decisions about what research to do.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
- Research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Wilson E. Wilson E. Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1123-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60557-2. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 24679620 No abstract available. - Research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Erren TC, Groß JV, Meyer-Rochow VB. Erren TC, et al. Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1124-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60560-2. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 24679624 No abstract available. - Research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Brindle P. Brindle P. Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1125. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60561-4. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 24679625 No abstract available. - Research: increasing value, reducing waste - Authors' reply.
Glasziou P, Macleod M, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW. Glasziou P, et al. Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1126-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60563-8. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 24679627 No abstract available. - How systematic reviews cause research waste.
Roberts I, Ker K. Roberts I, et al. Lancet. 2015 Oct 17;386(10003):1536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00489-4. Lancet. 2015. PMID: 26530621 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?
Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PMM, Korevaar DA, Graham ID, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Moher D, et al. Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1573-1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4. Epub 2015 Sep 27. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 26423180 Review. - The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834 - Noncommercial US Funders' Policies on Trial Registration, Access to Summary Results, and Individual Patient Data Availability.
Whitlock EP, Dunham KM, DiGioia K, Lazowick E, Gleason TC, Atkins D. Whitlock EP, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jan 4;2(1):e187498. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7498. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. PMID: 30681715 Free PMC article. - The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons.
Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. Moses H 3rd, et al. JAMA. 2015 Jan 13;313(2):174-89. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.15939. JAMA. 2015. PMID: 25585329 - Increasing value and reducing waste in stroke research.
Berge E, Al-Shahi Salman R, van der Worp HB, Stapf C, Sandercock P, Sprigg N, Macleod MR, Kelly PJ, Nederkoorn PJ, Ford GA; European Stroke Organisation Trials Network Committee. Berge E, et al. Lancet Neurol. 2017 May;16(5):399-408. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30078-9. Lancet Neurol. 2017. PMID: 28414653 Review.
Cited by
- Research ethics committee decision-making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial.
Gale C, Hyde MJ, Modi N; WHEAT trial development group. Gale C, et al. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017 Jul;102(4):F291-F298. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310935. Epub 2016 Sep 14. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017. PMID: 27630188 Free PMC article. - Research on the health of people who experience detention or incarceration in Canada: a scoping review.
Kouyoumdjian FG, Schuler A, Hwang SW, Matheson FI. Kouyoumdjian FG, et al. BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 25;15:419. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1758-6. BMC Public Health. 2015. PMID: 25943182 Free PMC article. Review. - Finding Alternatives to the Dogma of Power Based Sample Size Calculation: Is a Fixed Sample Size Prospective Meta-Experiment a Potential Alternative?
Tavernier E, Trinquart L, Giraudeau B. Tavernier E, et al. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 30;11(6):e0158604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158604. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27362939 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials