The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 98, Issue , 2018, Pages 53-61

  Faggion, Clovis Mariano ^a   Huivin, Raquel ^b   Aranda, Luisiana ^b   Pandis, Nikolaos ^c   Alarcon, Marco ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA CAYETANO HEREDIA   (Peru)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Dentistry; Evidence based practice; Methods; PRISMA; Reproducibility of search and primary study selection strategy; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTISTRY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); DOCUMENTATION; EVALUATION STUDY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; DENTISTRY; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDLINE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85044126218     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Jasny, B.R., Chin, G., Chong, L., Vignieri, S., Data replication & reproducibility. Again, and again, and again…Introduction. Science, 334, 2011, 1225.
2. Fidler, F., Chee, Y.E., Wintle, B.C., Burgman, M.A., McCarthy, M.A., Gordon, A., Meta research for evaluating reproducibility in Ecology and evolution. Bioscience 67 (2017), 282–289.
3. Baker, M., 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533 (2016), 452–454.
4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Statistical challenges in assessing and fostering the reproducibility of scientific results: summary of a workshop. 2016, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
5. Reality check on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 2016, 437.
6. Casadevall, A., Fang, F.C., Reproducible science. Infect Immun 78 (2010), 4972–4975.
7. Vaitkus, P.T., Brar, C., N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: publication bias perpetuated by meta-analyses. Am Heart J 153 (2007), 275–280.
8. Ioannidis, J.P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M.A., Khoury, M.J., Macleod, M.R., Moher, D., et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383 (2014), 166–175.
9. 5th World Conference on research Integrity, 2017. Available at http://www.wcri2017.org/. (Accessed 23 June 2017)
10. The Reward Alliance. 2017 Available at http://rewardalliance.net/. (Accessed 23 June 2017)
11. Goodman, S.N., Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J.P., What does research reproducibility mean?. Sci Transl Med, 8(341), 2016, 341ps12.
12. International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI). 2017 Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/ichi/en/. (Accessed 15 June 2017)
13. Cochrane glossary. 2017 Available at http://community-archive.cochrane.org/glossary. (Accessed 15 June 2017)
14. Baker, M., Dolgin, E., Cancer reproducibility project releases first results. Nature 541 (2017), 269–270.
15. Begley, C.G., Ellis, L.M., Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483 (2012), 531–533.
16. Mobley, A., Linder, S.K., Braeuer, R., Ellis, L.M., Zwelling, L., A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e63221.
17. Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 2015, aac4716.
18. Makel, M.C., Plucker, J.A., Hegarty, B., Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?. Perspect Psychol Sci 7 (2012), 537–542.
19. Frederickson, R.M., Brenner, M.K., A question of reproducibility. Mol Ther, 22(12), 2014, 2015.
20. Poland, C.A., Miller, M.R., Duffin, R., Cassee, F., The elephant in the room: reproducibility in toxicology. Part Fibre Toxicol, 11, 2014, 42.
21. Bergman, R.G., Danheiser, R.L., Reproducibility in chemical research. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 55 (2016), 12548–12549.
22. Chavalarias, D., Ioannidis, J.P., Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 1205–1215.
23. Page, M.J., Altman, D.G., Shamseer, L., McKenzie, J.E., Ahmadzai, N., Wolfe, D., et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 94 (2018), 8–18.
24. Koffel, J.B., Rethlefsen, M.L., Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and Surgery journals: a Cross-Sectional study. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0163309.
25. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 13, 2016, e1002028.
26. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G., Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 4, 2007, e78.
27. Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276 (1996), 637–639.
28. Altman, D.G., Simera, I., A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med 109 (2016), 67–77.
29. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), e1–e34.