Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research

JMN Duffy, S Bhattacharya, M Herman, B Mol, A Vail, J Wilkinson, C Farquhar, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that randomised controlled trials are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from all available randomised trials is likely to provide the best evidence to guide clinical practice. Advances in methodology have accompanied technological innovations in gynaecology and reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction, and laparoscopic surgery. In particular, high-quality systematic reviews have become important tools enabling evidence-based healthcare decisions and identifying gaps in evidence. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group has recently celebrated 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews with a symposium at the University of Oxford. With nearly a thousand authors and over 200 reviews, we are well aware of the need for making research more efficient, accessible and influential. This could be achieved by reducing research waste and addressing outcome reporting bias by developing and implementing core outcome sets.[1]
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)366-369
Number of pages4
JournalBJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume124
Issue number3
Early online date24 Jan 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Gynecology
Fertility
Research
Inventions
Reproductive Medicine
Ovulation Induction
Evidence-Based Practice
Laparoscopy
Reproduction
Randomized Controlled Trials

Cite this

Duffy, JMN., Bhattacharya, S., Herman, M., Mol, B., Vail, A., Wilkinson, J., ... Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (2017). Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research. BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 124(3), 366-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14438

Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research. / Duffy, JMN; Bhattacharya, S; Herman, M; Mol, B; Vail, A; Wilkinson, J; Farquhar, C; Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group.

In: BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 124, No. 3, 02.2017, p. 366-369.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Duffy, JMN, Bhattacharya, S, Herman, M, Mol, B, Vail, A, Wilkinson, J, Farquhar, C & Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group 2017, 'Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research', BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 366-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14438
Duffy, JMN ; Bhattacharya, S ; Herman, M ; Mol, B ; Vail, A ; Wilkinson, J ; Farquhar, C ; Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. / Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research. In: BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2017 ; Vol. 124, No. 3. pp. 366-369.
@article{56564cdc1e874178a98b32f50430bf36,
title = "Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research",
abstract = "The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that randomised controlled trials are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from all available randomised trials is likely to provide the best evidence to guide clinical practice. Advances in methodology have accompanied technological innovations in gynaecology and reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction, and laparoscopic surgery. In particular, high-quality systematic reviews have become important tools enabling evidence-based healthcare decisions and identifying gaps in evidence. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group has recently celebrated 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews with a symposium at the University of Oxford. With nearly a thousand authors and over 200 reviews, we are well aware of the need for making research more efficient, accessible and influential. This could be achieved by reducing research waste and addressing outcome reporting bias by developing and implementing core outcome sets.[1]",
author = "JMN Duffy and S Bhattacharya and M Herman and B Mol and A Vail and J Wilkinson and C Farquhar and {Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group}",
note = "Funding The commentary was not funded. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the 1000 authors, from over 45 countries, who have contributed to 200 reviews, and who are committed to reducing research waste; and the delegates who attended the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility 2016: Advancing Women's Health Through Evidence meeting held at the University of Oxford, UK (1–3 April 2016).",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/1471-0528.14438",
language = "English",
volume = "124",
pages = "366--369",
journal = "BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "1470-0328",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research

AU - Duffy, JMN

AU - Bhattacharya, S

AU - Herman, M

AU - Mol, B

AU - Vail, A

AU - Wilkinson, J

AU - Farquhar, C

AU - Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group

N1 - Funding The commentary was not funded. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the 1000 authors, from over 45 countries, who have contributed to 200 reviews, and who are committed to reducing research waste; and the delegates who attended the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility 2016: Advancing Women's Health Through Evidence meeting held at the University of Oxford, UK (1–3 April 2016).

PY - 2017/2

Y1 - 2017/2

N2 - The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that randomised controlled trials are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from all available randomised trials is likely to provide the best evidence to guide clinical practice. Advances in methodology have accompanied technological innovations in gynaecology and reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction, and laparoscopic surgery. In particular, high-quality systematic reviews have become important tools enabling evidence-based healthcare decisions and identifying gaps in evidence. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group has recently celebrated 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews with a symposium at the University of Oxford. With nearly a thousand authors and over 200 reviews, we are well aware of the need for making research more efficient, accessible and influential. This could be achieved by reducing research waste and addressing outcome reporting bias by developing and implementing core outcome sets.[1]

AB - The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that randomised controlled trials are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from all available randomised trials is likely to provide the best evidence to guide clinical practice. Advances in methodology have accompanied technological innovations in gynaecology and reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction, and laparoscopic surgery. In particular, high-quality systematic reviews have become important tools enabling evidence-based healthcare decisions and identifying gaps in evidence. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group has recently celebrated 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews with a symposium at the University of Oxford. With nearly a thousand authors and over 200 reviews, we are well aware of the need for making research more efficient, accessible and influential. This could be achieved by reducing research waste and addressing outcome reporting bias by developing and implementing core outcome sets.[1]

U2 - 10.1111/1471-0528.14438

DO - 10.1111/1471-0528.14438

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 124

SP - 366

EP - 369

JO - BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - BJOG-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 1470-0328

IS - 3

ER -