PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.
METHODS: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.
CONCLUSIONS: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.
METHODS: This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.
CONCLUSIONS: This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.
摘要：
背景：研究废物被定义为没有或具有最小社会效益的研究成果。这是医疗保健领域普遍存在的问题。研究废物的四个主要来源已经被定义：（1）无关或低优先级的研究问题，(2)设计或方法不佳，（3）缺乏出版，(4)报告有偏见或不充分。这篇评论,它是由具有脊柱操纵疗法（SMT）研究专长的多学科研究人员小组开发的，讨论了SMT研究中的浪费，并为改进未来的研究提供了建议。
方法：本评论探讨了SMT研究中常见的废物来源，专注于设计和方法论问题，通过借鉴先前的研究和临床和机械SMT研究的例子。临床研究以小型研究和具有高偏倚风险的研究为主。这个问题因汇集来自不同人群的异质数据的系统评价而变得更加复杂，设置，SMT的应用。专注于SMT机制的研究往往无法解决机制的临床相关性，依赖于非常短的随访期，并且对上下文因素控制不足。
结论：此行动呼吁针对SMT领域的研究人员。SMT研究界采取行动改进研究设计的方式至关重要，进行了,并传播。我们提出具体的关键行动要点和资源，这将提高未来SMT研究的质量和实用性。
方法：本评论探讨了SMT研究中常见的废物来源，专注于设计和方法论问题，通过借鉴先前的研究和临床和机械SMT研究的例子。临床研究以小型研究和具有高偏倚风险的研究为主。这个问题因汇集来自不同人群的异质数据的系统评价而变得更加复杂，设置，SMT的应用。专注于SMT机制的研究往往无法解决机制的临床相关性，依赖于非常短的随访期，并且对上下文因素控制不足。
结论：此行动呼吁针对SMT领域的研究人员。SMT研究界采取行动改进研究设计的方式至关重要，进行了,并传播。我们提出具体的关键行动要点和资源，这将提高未来SMT研究的质量和实用性。
