Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Mayo, Nancy E.; Ow, Nikki; Asano, Miho; Askari, Sorayya; Barclay, Ruth; Figueiredo, Sabrina; Hawkins, Melanie; Hum, Stanley; Inceer, Mehmet; Kaur, Navaldeep; Kuspinar, Ayse; Mate, Kedar; Moga, A; Mozafarinia, Maryam

doi:10.1007/s11136-022-03117-y

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chalmers and Glasziou [2] identified four sources of research waste starting off with not asking the right research question. The first paper [11] in this special section explored the extent to which research questions in journals focused on PROs were clearly stated. The authors found that almost half of research questions were poorly framed or unframed.…”

Section: The Special Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Rutherford

Boehnke

2022

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Special Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Rutherford

Boehnke

2022

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The objectives of this customer-centered review were to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the general public [ 40 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review

Mate¹,

Abou-Sharkh²,

Mansoubi³

et al. 2023

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of wearable technological devices or sensors that are commercially available for gait training is increasing. These devices can fill a gap by extending therapy outside the clinical setting. This was shown to be important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people could not access one-on-one treatment. These devices vary widely in terms of mechanisms of therapeutic effect, as well as targeted gait parameters, availability, and strength of the evidence supporting the claims. Objective This study aimed to create an inventory of devices targeting improvement in gait pattern and walking behavior and identify the strength of the evidence underlying the claims of effectiveness for devices that are commercially available to the public. Methods As there is no systematic or reproducible way to identify gait training technologies available to the public, we used a pragmatic, iterative approach using both the gray and published literature. Four approaches were used: simple words, including some suggested by laypersons; devices endorsed by condition-specific organizations or charities; impairment-specific search terms; and systematic reviews. A findable list of technological devices targeting walking was extracted separately by 3 authors. For each device identified, the evidence for efficacy was extracted from material displayed on the websites, and full-text articles were obtained from the scientific databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Additional information on the target population, mechanism of feedback, evidence for efficacy or effectiveness, and commercial availability was obtained from the published material or websites. A level of evidence was assigned to each study involving the device using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification. We also proposed reporting guidelines for the clinical appraisal of devices targeting movement and mobility. Results The search strategy for this consumer-centered review yielded 17 biofeedback devices that claim to target gait quality improvement through various sensory feedback mechanisms. Of these 17 devices, 11 (65%) are commercially available, and 6 (35%) are at various stages of research and development. Of the 11 commercially available devices, 4 (36%) had findable evidence for efficacy potential supporting the claims. Most of these devices were targeted to people living with Parkinson disease. The reporting of key information about the devices was inconsistent; in addition, there was no summary of research findings in layperson’s language. Conclusions The amount of information that is currently available to the general public to help them make an informed choice is insufficient, and, at times, the information presented is misleading. The evidence supporting the effectiveness does not cover all aspects of technology uptake. Commercially available technologies help to provide continuity of therapy outside the clinical setting, but there is a need to demonstrate effectiveness to support claims made by the technologies.

show abstract

Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Rutherford¹,

Böhnke²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research waste relating to the production and reporting of health and medical research is a major problem. Each year, resources are wasted on research that asks the wrong questions, uses inappropriate designs, includes unrepresentative or small samples, uses incorrect methods of analysis, and is inappropriately reported, disseminated, or translated into decision-making. These issues are pertinent to (health-related) quality of life ((HR)QL)/patient-reported outcome (PRO) research. In an attempt to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, the Lancet’s REWARD (REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence) Campaign invited everyone involved in research to critically examine how they work to reduce waste and maximise efficiency, and to strive to improve the value of the funds invested in the research we commission, deliver, publish, and implement. However, despite nearly a decade since the Lancet series, research waste is still a major problem. In 2021, the Editors of Quality of Life Research journal issued a call for papers on reducing (HR)QL/PRO research waste and optimizing (HR)QL/PRO data. Papers in the special section discuss the many contributors to research waste and the editors, in their editorial, highlight the ongoing issues that as researchers we should all be mindful of, and potential ways in which we could all do our bit to reduce research waste in the (HR)QL/PRO field.

show abstract

Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Cited by 4 publications

References 50 publications

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Evidence for the Efficacy of Commercially Available Wearable Biofeedback Gait Devices: Consumer-Centered Review

Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About