Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Borah, Rohit ^a   Brown, Andrew W ^a   Capers, Patrice L ^a   Kaiser, Kathryn A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA EXTRACTION; FUNDING; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; META ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; REGISTER; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WORKER; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; ECONOMICS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; MANPOWER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; TASK PERFORMANCE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; PUBLISHING; REGISTRIES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 85013996372     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. 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.
2. European Science Foundation. Forward Look - Implementation of Medical Research in Clinical Practice. European Science Foundation, 2011. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public-documents/Publications/Implem-MedReseach-ClinPractice.pdf (accessed 1 Apr 2016).
3. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the international committee of medical journal editors. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:505-6.
4. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018.
5. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015. https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-database-systematic-reviews-cdsr (accessed 1 Apr 2016).
6. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org/
7. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, et al. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev 2014;3:54.
8. PROSPERO - International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews. (University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, United Kingdom, 2015). http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed 1 Apr 2016).
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;338:b2535.
10. Levay P, Ainsworth N, Kettle R, et al. Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Res Synth Methods 2016;7:34-45.
11. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-20.
12. Allen IE, Olkin I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA 1999;282:634-5.
13. Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods 2014;5:31-49.
14. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2015;4:78.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100.
16. Marcial LH, Hemminger BM. Scientific data repositories on the Web: an initial survey. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2010;61:2029-48.
17. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis. PLoS ONE 2015;10: e0144980.
18. Rogers FB. Communications to the editor. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1963;51:114-16.
19. Costantino G, Montano N, Casazza G. When should we change our clinical practice based on the results of a clinical study? Searching for evidence: PICOS and PubMed. Intern Emerg Med 2015;10:525-7.
20. Hoogendam A, de Vries Robbe PF, Stalenhoef AF, et al. Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall. J Med Libr Assoc 2009;97:186-93.
21. Capers PL, Brown AW, Dawson JA, et al. Double sampling with multiple imputation to answer large sample meta-research questions: introduction and illustration by evaluating adherence to two simple CONSORT guidelines. Front Nutr 2015;2:6.
22. Hays M, Andrews M, Wilson R, et al. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011082.
23. Brown AW, Allison DB. Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: methods and example. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e100647.
24. National Information Standards Organization. Understanding Metadata. 2004. http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf. (accessed 19 Jan 2016).