In 2009, Chalmers and Glasziou highlighted the enormous problem of waste in research, estimating that up to 85 % of research investment is wasted [
1]. Waste occurs at all stages of research [
2‐
7] and particularly affects planning and prioritization. We have increasing evidence that many trials address low-priority questions that are poorly related to the burden of disease [
8] and patient or physician needs [
9,
10], do not address patient-important outcomes [
11] or use an inadequate comparator. For example, in rheumatology, few trials compare biologically active drugs against each other; comparisons against placebo represent 80 % of trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [
12]. This lack of head-to-head trials does not allow for answering the pragmatic question raised by patients and their physicians: for this particular disease, which treatment is most effective? Also, it exposes patients to unnecessary risks [
12,
13]. Last but not least, trials are frequently planned regardless of the existing evidence. More than 50 % of trial protocols do not refer to systematic reviews [
14]. Many trials are planned when sufficient data are already available for decision making, which results in redundant research and exposes patients to unnecessary risks [
3]. In contrast, trials are not planned when they are needed to fill research gaps, as highlighted by Singh Ospina and colleagues in a recent study published in
BMC Medicine [
15]. The authors defined research gaps as clinical questions with a very low level of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach from clinical practice guidelines [
15].