Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Methodology

Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report

Authors: Farhad Shokraneh, Clive E. Adams

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Maintained study-based registers (SBRs) have, at their core, study records linked to, potentially, multiple other records such as references, data sets, standard texts and full-text reports. Such registers can minimise and refine searching, de-duplicating, screening and acquisition of full texts. SBRs can facilitate new review titles/updates and, within seconds, inform the team about the potential workload of each task.

Methods

We discuss the advantages/disadvantages of SBRs and report a case of how such a register was used to develop a successful grant application and deliver results—reducing considerable redundancy of effort.

Results

SBRs saved time in question-setting and scoping and made rapid production of nine Cochrane systematic reviews possible.

Conclusion

Whilst helping prioritise and conduct systematic reviews, SBRs improve quality. Those funding information specialists for literature reviewing could reasonably stipulate the resulting SBR to be delivered for dissemination and use beyond the life of the project.

Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62229-1.CrossRef

Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62296-5.CrossRef

Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62228-x.CrossRef

Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8.CrossRef

Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6.CrossRef

Salman RA-S, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62297-7.CrossRef

Afshari A, Wetterslev J, Smith AF. Can systematic reviews with sparse data be trusted? Anaesthesia. 2017;72(1):12–16. PMID: 27804113. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13730.CrossRef

Annane D, Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes Intensive Care Med 2018;44(4):512–514. PMID: 29663046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5102-3.CrossRef

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet. 2016;387(10014):122–123. PMID: 26841991. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01353-7 CrossRef

10.

Chevret S, Ferguson ND, Bellomo R. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(4):515–517. PMID: 29663047https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5066-3.CrossRef

11.

Garattini S, Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Bertele V, Banzi R, Rath A, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice: overview of threats to the validity of evidence and how to minimise them. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;32:13–21. PMID: 27160381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.020.CrossRef

12.

Handoll HH, Langhorne P. In defence of reviews of small trials: underpinning the generation of evidence to inform practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11(11):ED000106. PMID: 26574167. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000106.

13.

Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10014):123–124 PMID: 26841992. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01354-9 CrossRef

14.

Moller MH, Ioannidis JPA, Darmon M. Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure. Intensive Care. 2018;44(4):518–20. PMID: 29663048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5039-y.CrossRef

15.

Nelson RL. Systematic reviews and research waste. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10014):124. PMID: 26841994. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01355-0.CrossRef

16.

Roberts I, Ker K. How systematic reviews cause research waste. Lancet. 2015;386(10003):1536. PMID: 26530621. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00489-4.CrossRef

17.

Roberts I, Ker K. Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):115. PMID: 27416925. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0290-9.

18.

Roberts I, Ker K, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E. The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change. BMJ. 2015;350:h2463. PMID: 26041754. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2463.CrossRef

19.

Andrade R, Pereira R, Weir A, Ardern CL, Espregueira-Mendes J. Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It's time to fight back! Br J Sports Med. 2017. PMID: 29021246. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098252.

20.

Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Solving research waste with better duplicate detection. Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(Suppl 3):14–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv167.023.

21.

Tovey D. Systematic Reviews can both prevent and create research waste: what is Cochrane doing now and how can it do better in the future? Edinburgh: REWARD/EQUATOR; 2015.

22.

Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, Horsley T, Ocampo M, Moher D. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):531–6. PMID: 18471656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.004.CrossRef

23.

Beller EM, Chen JK, Wang UL, Glasziou PP. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? Syst Rev. 2013;2:36. PMID: 23714302. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-36.

24.

Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. PMID: 28242767. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.CrossRef

25.

Bramer W, Bain P. Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(3):285–9. PMID: 28670219. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.183.

26.

Tharyan P. Evidence of the people, by the people, and for the people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;2011:ED000013 PMID: 21833936 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000013

27.

Wilson M. Help us improve the health of people everywhere. Cochrane collaboration. 2019. https://www.cochrane.org/join-cochrane.

28.

Tricco AC, Brehaut J, Chen MH, Moher D. Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3684. PMID: 18997866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003684.CrossRef

29.

Turner T, Green S, Tovey D, McDonald S, Soares-Weiser K, Pestridge C, et al. Producing Cochrane systematic reviews-a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):147. PMID: 28760162.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0542-3.

30.

Clavisi O, Bragge P, Tavender E, Turner T, Gruen RL. Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 66(5):496–502.e2. PMID: 22819249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002.CrossRef

31.

Hoekstra D, Mutsch M, Kien C, Gerhardus A, Lhachimi SK. Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: a protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e015500. PMID: 28780546. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500.CrossRef

32.

Otter MLE, Wright JM, King NV. Developing the Librarians' role in supporting grant applications and reducing waste in research: outcomes from a literature review and survey in the NIHR research design service. New Rev Acad Librariansh. 2017;23(2–3):258–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1330219.CrossRef

33.

Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:78. PMID: 26073888. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7.

34.

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). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):3. PMID: 29316980. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0667-4.

35.

Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;346:f139. PMID: 23305843. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f139 CrossRef

36.

Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3:74. PMID: 25005128. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-74.

37.

Kirtley S. Can librarians contribute to increasing value and reducing waste in medical research? EQUATOR Network: Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research 2014.

38.

Kirtley S. Improving the reliability and value of medical research literature: a new role for librarians in promoting good research reporting practices. Rome: 14th EAHIL; 2014. p. 11-3.

39.

Kirtley S. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: librarians are listening and are part of the answer. Lancet. 2016;387(10028):1601. PMID: 27116055.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30241-0.CrossRef

40.

Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440. PMID: 27797786. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5440.

41.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Galipeau J, Avey MT, et al. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549(7670):23–25. PMID: 28880300. https://doi.org/10.1038/549023a.CrossRef

42.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Study-based registers of randomized controlled trials: starting a systematic review with data extraction or meta-analysis. BioImpacts. 2017;7(4):209–217. PMID: 29435428. https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2017.25.CrossRef

43.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Potentials of registers of randomized controlled trials in automating the systematic reviews. Edinburgh: REWARD/EQUATOR; 2015. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19853.84963.

44.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE. How do the study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing? Edinburgh: 25th Cochrane Colloquium; 2018. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16401.28004.

45.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE. A simple formula for enumerating comparisons in trials and network meta-analysis. F1000Research. 2019;8:38. PMID: 30863537. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17352.2.CrossRef

46.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE, Clarke M, Amato L, Bastian H, Beller E, et al. Why Cochrane should prioritise sharing data. BMJ. 2018;362:k3229. PMID: 30061322. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3229.

47.

Shokraneh F. Register of trials. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group 2018;http://schizophrenia.cochrane.org/register-trials

48.

Akl EA, Fadlallah R, Ghandour L, Kdouh O, Langlois E, Lavis JN, et al. The SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):77. PMID: 28870215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4.

49.

Adams CE, Walker DM, Gray B, Soares-Weiser K. HTA - 14/27/02: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the safety and clinical effectiveness of interventions for treating or preventing deterioration of symptoms of antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia (TD). 2015. https://www.fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/14/27/02.

50.

Adams CE, Walker DM, Gray B, Soares-Weiser K, Bergman H, Zhao S, et al. Appendix: traceable extracted data from included studies of tardive dyskinesia reviews. 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28907.95529.

51.

Bergman H, Walker DM, Nikolakopoulou A, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE. Systematic review of interventions for treating or preventing antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(43):1–218. PMID: 28812541. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21430.CrossRef

52.

Soares K, McGrath J, Adams C. Evidence and tardive dyskinesia. Lancet. 1996;347(9016):1696–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91525-1.CrossRef

53.

Bergman H, Soares-Weiser K. Anticholinergic medication for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD000204. PMID: 29341071. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000204.pub2.

54.

Bergman H, Rathbone J, Agarwal V, Soares-Weiser K. Antipsychotic reduction and/or cessation and antipsychotics as specific treatments for tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD000459. PMID: 29409162. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000459.pub3.

55.

Bergman H, Bhoopathi PS, Soares-Weiser K. Benzodiazepines for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD000205. PMID: 29352477. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000205.pub3.

56.

Essali A, Soares-Weiser K, Bergman H, Adams CE. Calcium channel blockers for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD000206. PMID: 29578611. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000206.pub4.

57.

Tammenmaa-Aho I, Asher R, Soares-Weiser K, Bergman H. Cholinergic medication for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD000207. PMID: 29553158. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000207.pub2.

58.

Alabed S, Latifeh Y, Mohammad HA, Bergman H. Gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD000203. PMID: 29663328. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000203.pub4.

59.

Soares-Weiser K, Rathbone J, Ogawa Y, Shinohara K, Bergman H. Miscellaneous treatments for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD000208. PMID: 29552749. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000208.pub2.

60.

El-Sayeh HG, Rathbone J, Soares-Weiser K, Bergman H. Non-antipsychotic catecholaminergic drugs for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD000458. PMID: 29342497. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000458.pub3.

61.

Adelufosi AO, Abayomi O, Ojo TM. Pyridoxal 5 phosphate for neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD010501. PMID: 25866243. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010501.pub2.

62.

Karl B, Bergman H, Abd El Sayed S, Adams CE. Vesicular monoamine transporter inhibitors versus placebo for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD012986. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012986.

63.

Soares-Weiser K, Maayan N, Bergman H. Vitamin E for antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD000209. PMID: 29341067. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000209.pub3.

64.

Kaur S, de Souza M, Fenton M, Adams CE. MeerKat 1.4 – and beyond. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group; 2009.

65.

MeerKat Working G, Editor MeerKat: getting the most out of your study-based specialized register. Melbourne: Cochrane Colloquium; 2005.

66.

Wright J. MeerKat user guide for MeerKat version 1.4. Grant T, editor. Leeds: Cochrane Schizophrenia Group; 2006.

67.

Shokraneh F, Adams CE. Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):153. PMID: 28778216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0546-z.

68.

Higgins JPT, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3: maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and feedback. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

69.

Jaidee W, Moher D, Laopaiboon M. Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews. PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11553 PMID: 20644625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011553.CrossRef

70.

Chalmers I, Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ. 1994;309(6958):862–5. PMID: 7950620. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6958.862.CrossRef

71.

Barrowman NJ, Fang M, Sampson M, Moher D. Identifying null meta-analyses that are ripe for updating. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:13. PMID: 12877755. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-13.

72.

Waters E, Doyle J, Jackson N. Evidence-based public health: improving the relevance of Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews to global public health priorities. J Public Health Med. 2003;25(3):263–6 PMID: 14575208.CrossRef

73.

Doyle J, Waters E, Yach D, McQueen D, De Francisco A, Stewart T, et al. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(3):193–7. PMID: 15709077. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.019547.CrossRef

74.

Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(11):1095–104. PMID: 17938050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.008.CrossRef

75.

Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179.CrossRef

76.

Cohen AM. Optimizing feature representation for automated systematic review work prioritization. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;6:121–5 PMID: 18998798.

77.

Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(1):Mr000023 PMID: 18254126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000023.pub3

78.

Sampson M, Shojania KG, McGowan J, Daniel R, Rader T, Iansavichene AE, et al. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):755–762. PMID: 18586179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.003.CrossRef

79.

Cohen AM, Ambert K, McDonagh M. Cross-topic learning for work prioritization in systematic review creation and update. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(5):690–704. PMID: 19567792. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M3162.CrossRef

80.

Sampson MJ. Updating searches for systematic reviews: Aberystwyth University; 2009.

81.

Sutton AJ, Donegan S, Takwoingi Y, Garner P, Gamble C, Donald A. An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(3):241–51. PMID: 18783919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.005.CrossRef

82.

Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e9914. PMID: 20376338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009914.CrossRef

83.

Bastian H, Scheibler F, Knelangen M, Zschorlich B, Nasser M, Waltering A. Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):348–56. PMID: 22004776. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462311000547.CrossRef

84.

Meremikwu M, Udoh E, Nwagbara B, Effa E, Oringanje C, Edet B, et al. Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria. Health Pol. 2011;99(3):244–9. PMID: 21131092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.11.004.CrossRef

85.

Chung M, Newberry SJ, Ansari MT, Yu WW, Wu H, Lee J, et al. Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):660–8. PMID: 22464414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.004.CrossRef

86.

Cohen AM, Ambert K, McDonagh M. Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:33. PMID: 22515596. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-33.

87.

Dalal SR, Shekelle PG, Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Motala A, Shetty KD. AHRQ Methods for effective health care. A pilot study using machine learning and domain knowledge to facilitate comparative effectiveness review updating. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012.CrossRef

88.

Hoomans T, Seidenfeld J, Basu A, Meltzer D. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Systematizing the use of value of information analysis in prioritizing systematic reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012.

89.

Pattanittum P, Laopaiboon M, Moher D, Lumbiganon P, Ngamjarus C. A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48894. PMID: 23185281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048894.CrossRef

90.

Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. SYSTEM research note on: the modified Ottawa method for updating systematic reviews. J Minimum Intervention Dentistry. 2013;6:15–29.

91.

Newberry SJ, Ahmadzai N, Motala A, Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Ansari MT, et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Surveillance and identification of signals for updating systematic reviews: implementation and early experience. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.

92.

Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton AJ. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. Bmj. 2013;347:f7191. PMID: 24336453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7191.CrossRef

93.

Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA, Idzerda L. Methods for setting priorities in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):467–8. PMID: 23548134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.008.CrossRef

94.

Shekelle PG, Motala A, Johnsen B. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.

95.

Shekelle PG, Motala A, Johnsen B, Newberry SJ. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2014;3:13. PMID: 24529068. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-13.

96.

Martinez Garcia L, Sanabria AJ, Araya I, Lawson J, Sola I, Vernooij RW, et al. Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:57. PMID: 26227021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2.

97.

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schunemann HJ, Akl EA, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507. PMID: 27443385. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507.

98.

Sampson M, de Bruijn B, Urquhart C, Shojania K. Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;78:108–15. PMID: 26976054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.004.CrossRef

99.

Martinez Garcia L, Pardo-Hernandez H, Superchi C, Nino de Guzman E, Ballesteros M, Ibargoyen Roteta N, et al. Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:11–24. PMID: 28549931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.008.CrossRef

100.

Shokraneh F. Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews. World J Meta-Anal. 2019;7(3):66–71. https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i3.66 CrossRef

101.

Shokraneh F. Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.008.

Title: Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report
Authors: Farhad Shokraneh
Clive E. Adams
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Recovery rate and determinants of severe acute malnutrition children treatment in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Using mobile phones to improve young people’s sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol to identify barriers, facilitators and reported interventions

The therapeutic effects of microRNAs in preclinical studies of acute kidney injury: a systematic review protocol

The association between diabetes and age at the onset of menopause: a systematic review protocol

Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with other approaches to treat aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Center of pressure characteristics from quiet standing measures to predict the risk of falling in older adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis