Background: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. Objectives: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. Eligibility criteria: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users’ perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. Sources of evidence: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. Charting methods: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. Results: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. Conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectives: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Systematic review registration: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

Background: Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Results: We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I²=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusion: Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers’ use of prior research systematically and transparently—also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. Systematic review registration: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/

Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030 project was launched in 2016 as a strategy for economic development and national growth, with 11 Vision Realization Programs put in charge of its implementation. The backbone of its Transformation Program for the Health Sector has been the definition of a new Model of Care aiming to deliver 42 coordinated interventions across 6 Systems of Care, with the development of clinical guidelines identified as a key cross-cutting intervention to foster the use of national, evidence-based practices across KSA, reduce care variation, and promote accountable care. This article provides an overview of the history, progress to date, and future outlook of the recently initiated National Guidelines Center in Saudi Arabia, established in collaboration between the Health Holding Company and the Saudi Health Council represented by its National Center for Evidence-based Medicine. The lessons learnt from previous guideline initiatives are grouped under the Center’s design principles of high quality, relevance, practical implementation, and sustainability. Aspects setting the project apart from previous endeavors have been its focus on extensive engagement with key stakeholders in the Saudi guideline ecosystem, the co-development of evidence-based recommendations with aligned key performance measures, and the implementation of guideline recommendations in the clinical workflow via integrated electronic order sets. Nine activity streams aim to enable the Center to take its place among the leading regional and global guideline developing organizations and to optimally support clinicians and patients, Saudi Arabia’s health sector transformation, and the work of guideline communities worldwide.

Background/Objectives: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability in Saudi Arabia and contributes substantially to healthcare utilisation, reduced quality of life, and lost productivity. This guideline provides nationally standardised, evidence-based recommendations for the assessment and management of non-specific LBP and sciatica in adults, adapted to the clinical and health-system context in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A multidisciplinary Task Force developed the guideline using the GRADE ADOLOPMENT approach, using NICE guideline NG59 as the primary evidence source. One additional clinical question was formulated to address pain neuroscience education, informed by a relevant systematic review. Update literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2016–2022). The evidence was appraised using GRADE, and recommendations were formulated through structured Evidence-to-Decision deliberations and consensus voting. Results: The Task Force addressed eleven clinical questions in this guideline. Strong recommendations were provided for the use of validated risk assessment tools (very low certainty of evidence) and stratified management (moderate certainty of evidence). Conditional recommendations were made for indications for imaging, pharmacological treatment for sciatica, psychological interventions, multidisciplinary return to work programmes, epidural injections, prognostic value of image-concordant pathology, spinal decompression, radiofrequency denervation, and pain neuroscience education, with certainty of evidence ranging from very low to low. Conclusions: The findings indicate that management of non-specific LBP and sciatica in Saudi Arabia should be guided by clinical assessment, with restricted use of imaging, careful selection of pharmacological treatments, and appropriate use of psychological, multidisciplinary, and procedural interventions.