Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nørgaard, Birgitte; Draborg, Eva; Andreasen, Jane; Juhl, Carsten Bogh; Yost, Jennifer; Brunnhuber, Klara; Robinson, Karen A.; Lund, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.007

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study is one of six ongoing evidence syntheses (four systematic reviews and two scoping reviews) planned to assess the global state of evidence-based research in clinical health research. These are; a scoping review mapping the area broadly to describe current practice and identify knowledge gaps, a systematic review on the use of prior research in reports of randomized controlled trials specifically, three systematic reviews assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing [ 14 ] or putting results of a new study in context, and finally a scoping review uncovering the breadth and characteristics of the available, empirical evidence on the topic of citation bias. Further, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

Andreasen

Nørgaard²,

Draborg³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/). Results Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%). Conclusion Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

Andreasen

Nørgaard²,

Draborg³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 We screened titles and abstracts for empirical, peer-reviewed articles published in English that included some form of exposure, along with psychological responses, physiological responses, or health outcomes (i.e., incidence/prevalence of disease, illness, or mortality). Additional articles were retrieved by screening the author's personal libraries and using ancestry-search methods (i.e., forward and backward searches) (Nørgaard et al, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond “bluespace” and “greenspace”: A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes

Browning

Rigolon

et al. 2023

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We screened titles and abstracts for empirical, peer-reviewed articles published in English that included some form of exposure and psychological responses, physiological responses, or health outcomes (i.e., incidence/prevalence of disease, illness, or mortality). Additional articles were retrieved by screening the author's personal libraries and using ancestry-search methods (i.e., forward and backward searches) (Nørgaard et al, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond "bluespace" and "greenspace": A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes

Li¹,

Browning²,

Rigolon³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have highlighted the physical and mental health benefits of contact with nature, typically in landscapes characterized by plants (i.e., “greenspace”) and water (i.e., “bluespace”). However, natural landscapes are not always green or blue, and the effects of other landscapes are worth attention. This narrative review attempts to overcome this limitation in past research by pursuing the following objectives: (1) categorizing these natural landscapes, (2) summarizing the literature on health benefits of exposure to landscapes beyond "greenspace" and "bluespace," and (3) presenting the potential mechanisms underlying any health benefits derived from exposure to these other landscapes. We propose that natural landscapes are composed of at least one of three components: (1) plants (e.g., trees, flowering plants, grasses, sedges mosses, ferns, and algae), (2) water (e.g., rivers, canals, lakes, oceans), and/or (3) rocks and minerals, including soil. Landscapes not dominated by plants or liquid-state water include those with abundant solid-state water (e.g., polar spaces) and rocks or minerals (e.g., deserts, caves). Possible health benefits of solid-state water or rock/mineral dominated landscapes include both shorter-term (i.e., viewing images) and longer-term (i.e., living in these landscapes) exposure durations. Reported benefits span improved emotional and mental states and medical treatment resources for respiratory conditions and allergies.Restorative and instorative mechanisms underlying health benefits consist of commonly discussed theories in the "greenspace" and "bluespace" literature as well as less discussed pathways in that literature. Benefits of shorter-term exposure may be explained by attention restoration theory and stress reduction theory. Benefits of longer-term exposure may result from the cumulative effects of shorter-term exposures as well as psychological benefits explained by post-traumatic growth theory, supportive environment theory, and place attachment. Additional mechanisms may include distinct types of physical activity and immune system benefits, among others.This is the first review to draw attention to the potential salutogenic value of natural landscapes beyond "greenspace" and "bluespace." It is also among the first to highlight the limitations and confusion that result from classifying natural landscapes using colors. Since the extant literature on natural landscapes - beyond those with abundant plants or liquid-state water - is limited in regard to quantity and quality, additional research is needed to understand their restorative potential and therapeutic possibilities.

show abstract

Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 18 publications

References 40 publications

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

Beyond “bluespace” and “greenspace”: A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes

Beyond "bluespace" and "greenspace": A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About