Bel article dans le BMJ (25 mars 2015) dont le titre apporte la réponse : "Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials". Félicitons les premiers auteurs, Youri Yordanov et Agnès Dechartres qui ont dû faire le boulot. En ajoutant un peu de méthodologie dans les protocoles et analyses d'essais, des gaspillages seraient évités…. Article bien écrit avec une image ci-contre que je vous suggère de lire tranquillement avec la légende.. mais c'est bien fait… Voici les résultats de leur recherche :
Results Of 1286 trials from 205 meta-analyses, 556 (43%) had at least one domain at high risk of bias. Among the sample of 200 of these trials, 142 were confirmed as high risk; in these, we identified 25 types of methodological problem. Adjustments were possible in 136 trials (96%). Easy adjustments with no or minor cost could be applied in 71 trials (50%), resulting in 17 trials (12%) changing to low risk for all domains. So the avoidable waste represented 12% (95% CI 7% to 18%) of trials with at least one domain at high risk. After correcting for incomplete reporting, avoidable waste due to inadequate methods was estimated at 42% (95% CI 36% to 49%).
Conclusions An important burden of wasted research is related to inadequate methods. This waste could be partly avoided by simple and inexpensive adjustments.
Si le gaspillage vous intéresse, venez à Edinburgh fin septembre 2015 pour la conférence "Increasing value and reducing waste in biomédicale research conference"
Merci à Bénédicte Sautenet
