Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 162, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 287-294

  Li, Tianjing ^a   Vedula, S Swaroop ^b   Hadar, Nira ^c   Parkin, Christopher ^c   Lau, Joseph ^c   Dickersin, Kay ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL DATA REPOSITORY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; STAFF TRAINING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; DOCUMENTATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RECORD; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; DATA COLLECTION; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84923303095     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M14-1603     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Olsen LA, Grossmann C, McGinnis JM. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2011.
2. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds; Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Board on Health Care Services. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2011.
3. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Version 2.3. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2 December 2013. Accessed at www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR-conduct-standards%202.3%2002122013.pdf on 14 January 2014.
4. Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Accessed at www.cochrane-handbook.org on 23 January 2014.
5. Ip S, Hadar N, Keefe S, Parkin C, Iovin R, Balk EM, et al. A Webbased archive of systematic review data. Syst Rev. 2012;1:15. [PMID: 22588052] doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-15
6. Data collection and processing. In: Meinert CL. Clinical Trials Handbook: Design and Conduct. Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley; 2012.
7. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, United Kingdom: York Publishing Services; 2009. Accessed at www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index-guidance.htm on 8 March 2013.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-9. [PMID: 19622511]
9. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-12. [PMID: 10789670]
10. Cochrane Collaboration. Methodological standards for the reporting of Cochrane Intervention Reviews, Version 1.1. 17 December 2012. Accessed at www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR%20Reporting%20standards%201.1-17122012-2.pdf on 23 January 2014.
11. Data collection considerations. In: Meinert CL. Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct, and Analysis. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1986:140-8.
12. Data definition, forms, and database design. In: McFadden E. Management of Data in Clinical Trials. Hoboken: J Wiley; 1997.
13. Gresham G, Li T. Evaluating the efficiency and accuracy of data abstraction for systematic reviews using Systematic Review Data Repository [Abstract]. Presented at 35th Society for Clinical Trials Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 18-21 May 2014. Abstract no. P078.
14. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697-703. [PMID: 16765272]
15. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA. 2007;298:430-7. [PMID: 17652297]
16. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, Ashby D, Smyth RL. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:741-2. [PMID: 15939227]
17. Horton J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP, Buscemi N. Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:289-98. [PMID: 19683413] doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.007
18. Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39. [PMID: 18039365]
19. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. [PMID: 22867278] doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
20. COMET Initiative. About COMET. 2013. Accessed at www.comet -initiative.org on 23 January 2014.
21. Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Wang X, Li T. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability. PLOS One. 2014;9(10): e109400. [PMID: 25329377] doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109400.
22. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Schmid CH, Bertram L, et al. Toward modernizing the systematic review pipeline in genetics: efficient updating via data mining. Genet Med. 2012;14:663-9. [PMID: 22481134]
23. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semiautomated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:55. [PMID: 20102628] doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-55
24. Kiritchenko S, de Bruijn B, Carini S, Martin J, Sim I. ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publications. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:56. [PMID: 20920176] doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-56
25. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326. [PMID: 20877712] doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326