Dataset Information

The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) are cornerstones of evidence-based medicine and have contributed significantly to breakthroughs since the 1980's. However, preclinical SRs remain relatively rare despite their many advantages. Since 2011 the Dutch health funding organisation (ZonMw) has run a grant scheme dedicated to promoting the training, coaching and conduct of preclinical SRs. Our study focuses on this funding scheme to investigate the relevance, effects and benefits of conducting preclinical SRs on researchers and their research.

Methods

We recruited researchers who attended funded preclinical SR workshops and who conducted, are still conducting, or prematurely stopped a SR with funded coaching. We gathered data using online questionnaires followed by semi-structured interviews. Both aimed to explore the impact of conducting a SR on researchers' subsequent work, attitudes, and views about their research field. Data-analysis was performed using Excel and ATLAS.ti.

Results

Conducting preclinical SRs had two distinct types of impact. First, the researchers acquired new skills and insights, leading to a change in mindset regarding the quality of animal research. This was mainly seen in the way participants planned, conducted and reported their subsequent animal studies, which were more transparent and of a higher quality than their previous work. Second, participants were eager to share their newly acquired knowledge within their laboratories and to advocate for change within their research teams and fields of interest. In particular, they emphasised the need for preclinical SRs and improved experimental design within preclinical research, promoting these through education and published opinion papers.

Conclusion

Being trained and coached in the conduct of preclinical SRs appears to be a contributing factor to many beneficial changes which will impact the quality of preclinical research in the long-term. Our findings suggest that this ZonMw funding scheme is helpful in improving the quality and transparency of preclinical research. Similar funding schemes should be encouraged, preferably by a broader group of funders or financers, in the future.

SUBMITTER: Menon JML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systematic reviews are increasingly using data from preclinical animal experiments in evidence networks. Further, there are ever-increasing efforts to automate aspects of the systematic review process. When assessing systematic bias and unit-of-analysis errors in preclinical experiments, it is critical to understand the study design elements employed by investigators. Such information can also inform prioritization of automation efforts that allow the identification of the most common issues. The aim of this study was to identify the design elements used by investigators in preclinical research in order to inform unique aspects of assessment of bias and error in preclinical research. Using 100 preclinical experiments each related to brain trauma and toxicology, we assessed design elements described by the investigators. We evaluated Methods and Materials sections of reports for descriptions of the following design elements: 1) use of comparison group, 2) unit of allocation of the interventions to study units, 3) arrangement of factors, 4) method of factor allocation to study units, 5) concealment of the factors during allocation and outcome assessment, 6) independence of study units, and 7) nature of factors. Many investigators reported using design elements that suggested the potential for unit-of-analysis errors, i.e., descriptions of repeated measurements of the outcome (94/200) and descriptions of potential for pseudo-replication (99/200). Use of complex factor arrangements was common, with 112 experiments using some form of factorial design (complete, incomplete or split-plot-like). In the toxicology dataset, 20 of the 100 experiments appeared to use a split-plot-like design, although no investigators used this term. The common use of repeated measures and factorial designs means understanding bias and error in preclinical experimental design might require greater expertise than simple parallel designs. Similarly, use of complex factor arrangements creates novel challenges for accurate automation of data extraction and bias and error assessment in preclinical experiments.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007-2011.MethodsWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 1,502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR-funded CRGs between 2007 and 2011. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance: 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example, safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document, and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use.ConclusionsHealth and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact, and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.

Project description:BackgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.MethodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples' health would be explicated.ResultsSeventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.ConclusionsThe findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:BackgroundMachine learning and automation are increasingly used to make the evidence synthesis process faster and more responsive to policymakers' needs. In systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), risk of bias assessment is a resource-intensive task that typically requires two trained reviewers. One function of RobotReviewer, an off-the-shelf machine learning system, is an automated risk of bias assessment.MethodsWe assessed the feasibility of adopting RobotReviewer within a national public health institute using a randomized, real-time, user-centered study. The study included 26 RCTs and six reviewers from two projects examining health and social interventions. We randomized these studies to one of two RobotReviewer platforms. We operationalized feasibility as accuracy, time use, and reviewer acceptability. We measured accuracy by the number of corrections made by human reviewers (either to automated assessments or another human reviewer's assessments). We explored acceptability through group discussions and individual email responses after presenting the quantitative results.ResultsReviewers were equally likely to accept judgment by RobotReviewer as each other's judgement during the consensus process when measured dichotomously; risk ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; p = 0.33). We were not able to compare time use. The acceptability of the program by researchers was mixed. Less experienced reviewers were generally more positive, and they saw more benefits and were able to use the tool more flexibly. Reviewers positioned human input and human-to-human interaction as superior to even a semi-automation of this process.ConclusionDespite being presented with evidence of RobotReviewer's equal performance to humans, participating reviewers were not interested in modifying standard procedures to include automation. If further studies confirm equal accuracy and reduced time compared to manual practices, we suggest that the benefits of RobotReviewer may support its future implementation as one of two assessors, despite reviewer ambivalence. Future research should study barriers to adopting automated tools and how highly educated and experienced researchers can adapt to a job market that is increasingly challenged by new technologies.