An Analysis of the Use of Systematic Reviews to Justify Otolaryngology Randomized Controlled Trials - Is Research Being Wasted?

Abstract

Objective of Research: Current medical research is plagued by redundancy and research waste. One such source of research waste derives from failing to use a previously conducted systematic review (SR) to indicate whether conducting a new randomized controlled trial (RCT) is indeed warranted or needed. The purpose of our study is to explore the level of adherence to guidelines and where a literature search was incorporated and documented SRs were used as justification for conducting a RCT and the amount of research waste as a consequence. Methods and Results: We performed a meta-epidemiological cross-sectional study of RCTs published in top peer reviewed otorhinolaryngological journals according to Google Scholar Metrics. We recorded whether or not that study used the cited systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. Of the 304 articles retrieved, 151 were included. Overall, only 58.3% (88/151) of studies referenced a SR while shockingly, 41.7% (63/151) articles did not reference at all a systematic review. Possibly even more alarming is the fact that only 27% (24/88) that did cite at least one SR mentioned the SR as justification for conducting the trial and only 17% (15/88) of studies cited verbatim that a SR implicated the need for a RCT to further gaps in knowledge. Conclusion: Based off of our findings, we recommend that efforts be taken to reduce research waste by using systematic reviews and meta-analysis as justification for conducting RCTs.