The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): Descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Saldanha, Ian J ^a   Smith, Bryant T ^a   Ntzani, Evangelia ^a,b   Jap, Jens ^a   Balk, Ethan M ^a   Lau, Joseph ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR DISORDER; CLINICAL DATA REPOSITORY; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; EYE DISEASE; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); FACTUAL DATABASE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85077000732     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1250-y     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington: The National Academies Presas; 2011.
2. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39-50.
3. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):2-12.
4. Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(10):e1002264.
5. Wolfenden L, Grimshaw J, Williams CM, Yoong SL. Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):185.
6. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408-12.
7. Hannink G, Gooszen HG, Rovers MM. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):818-23.
8. Ip S, Hadar N, Keefe S, et al. A web-based archive of systematic review data. Syst Rev. 2012;1:15.
9. Li T, Vedula SS, Hadar N, Parkin C, Lau J, Dickersin K. Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(4):287-94.
10. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. 2016. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en. Accessed 19 Nov 2019.
11. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.
12. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32.
13. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet (London, England). 2011;377(9760):108-9.
14. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1:7.
15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.
16. Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T, et al. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:23-30.
17. Abou-Setta AM, Jeyaraman MM, Attia A, et al. Methods for developing evidence reviews in short periods of time: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0165903.
18. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Rev Med Chil. 2016;144(1):11-3.
19. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514.
20. Bashir R, Surian D, Dunn AG. Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):195.
21. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:78.
22. O'Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Wolfe MS. Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Sys Rev. 2018;7(1):3.
23. van Altena AJ, Spijker R, Olabarriaga SD. Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(1):72-82.
24. Lau J. Editorial: systematic review automation thematic series. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):70.
25. Tudur Smith C, Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Riley R, Williamson PR. Sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: an opinion survey regarding the establishment of a central repository. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97886.
26. Saldanha IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Evaluating Data Abstraction Assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):196.
27. Jap J, Saldanha IJ, Smith BT, Lau J, Li T. Response to 'Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms'. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):18.
28. Jap J, Saldanha IJ, Smith BT, Lau J, Schmid CH, Li T, Data Abstraction Assistant Investigators. Features and functioning of Data Abstraction Assistant, a software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(1):2-14 PubMed ID: 30325115. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1326.
29. Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Balk EM, Wong JB. AHRQ methods for effective health care guidance for the conduct and reporting of modeling and simulation studies in the context of health technology assessment. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
30. Saldanha IJ, Li T, Yang C, Ugarte-Gil C, Rutherford GW, Dickersin K. Social network analysis identified central outcomes for core outcome sets using systematic reviews of HIV/AIDS. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:164-75.
31. Saldanha IJ, Lindsley K, Do DV, et al. Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(9):933-40.
32. Saldanha IJ, Lindsley KB, Lum F, Dickersin K, Li T. Reliability of the evidence addressing treatment of corneal diseases: a summary of systematic reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(7):775-85.
33. Saldanha IJ, Petris R, Han G, Dickersin K, Akpek EK. Research questions and outcomes prioritized by patients with dry eye. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(10):1170-9.
34. Saldanha IJ, Lindsley K, Money S, Kimmel HJ, Smith BT, Dickersin K. Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study. (Submitted).
35. Li T, Saldanha IJ, Jap J, et al. A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:77-89.
36. Saldanha IJ, Senturk B, Smith BT, Robinson KA. Pilot to promote entry of structured data into the systematic review data repository: methods research report. Vol AHRQ publication no. 19-EH028-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019.
37. Tsujimoto Y, Tsutsumi Y, Kataoka Y, et al. Statistical significance did not affect time to publication in non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a metaepidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:25-34.