Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example

Authors: Chris Cooper, Juan Talens Bou, Jo Varley-Campbell

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Studies find that identifying additional study data is possible by contacting study authors or experts. What is less certain is the time taken, costs involved and value found by using this supplementary search method.
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors by e-mail, updating the evidence available for this search method.

Methods

Eighty-eight study authors, whose studies met title/abstract inclusion in a.
systematic review, were contacted by e-mail.
* effectiveness was assessed by comparing the number of study authors contacted.
compared to the number of replies received;
* efficiency was assessed by recording the time taken to contact study authors;
* cost was assessed by comparing the efficiency of contacting authors with the.
effectiveness; and
* value was assessed by reading and comparing the published studies with the replies received to see if any unique data was identified.

Results

Contacting study authors took 6 h, 54 min and 25 s across 7 weeks. 38 answers (46%) were received from 83 possible contacts. Contacting study authors cost £80.33 or £2.11 per reply. We identified unique data from author replies when compared with data reported in published studies, determining this method as ‘valuable’.

Conclusions

Whilst our effectiveness findings differ from other studies, we believe that this study demonstrates the effectiveness of contacting study authors. By linking effectiveness to value and cost, we offer a new way to interpret the ‘effectiveness’ of this supplementary search method.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gibson CA, Bailey BW, Carper MJ, LeCheminant JD, Kirk EP, Huang G, DuBose KD, Donnelly JE. Author contacts for retrieval of data for a meta-analysis on exercise and diet restriction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2):267–70.CrossRef Gibson CA, Bailey BW, Carper MJ, LeCheminant JD, Kirk EP, Huang G, DuBose KD, Donnelly JE. Author contacts for retrieval of data for a meta-analysis on exercise and diet restriction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2):267–70.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference O'Leary F. Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the emergency medicine journal for 2001. Emergency Med J: EMJ. 2003;20(4):352–3.CrossRef O'Leary F. Is email a reliable means of contacting authors of previously published papers? A study of the emergency medicine journal for 2001. Emergency Med J: EMJ. 2003;20(4):352–3.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Selph SS, Ginsburg AD, Chou R. Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3(1):107.CrossRef Selph SS, Ginsburg AD, Chou R. Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis. Systematic Reviews. 2014;3(1):107.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Hyde CJ, Tobias RS, Jowett S, Hobbs FDR. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1998;317(7172):1562–3.CrossRef McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Hyde CJ, Tobias RS, Jowett S, Hobbs FDR. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1998;317(7172):1562–3.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics. 1989;84(2):374–80.PubMed Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics. 1989;84(2):374–80.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Reveiz L, Cardona AF, Ospina EG, de Agular S. An e-mail survey identified unpublished studies for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):755–8.CrossRef Reveiz L, Cardona AF, Ospina EG, de Agular S. An e-mail survey identified unpublished studies for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):755–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Garside R: A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. BMC Systematic Reviews 2017, In Press. Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Garside R: A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. BMC Systematic Reviews 2017, In Press.
8.
go back to reference Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. (in press). BMC Systematic Reviews. 2017. Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. (in press). BMC Systematic Reviews. 2017.
9.
go back to reference Cooper C, Varley-Campbell J, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. Systematic review identifies six metrics and one method for assessing literature search effectiveness but no consensus on appropriate use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018. Cooper C, Varley-Campbell J, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. Systematic review identifies six metrics and one method for assessing literature search effectiveness but no consensus on appropriate use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018.
10.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (eds.): Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data, 5.1.0 edn: the Cochrane collaboration; 2011. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (eds.): Chapter 7: selecting studies and collecting data, 5.1.0 edn: the Cochrane collaboration; 2011.
11.
go back to reference McGrath J, Davies G, Soares K. Writing to authors of systematic reviews elicited further data in 17% of cases. BMJ. 1998;316(7131):631.CrossRef McGrath J, Davies G, Soares K. Writing to authors of systematic reviews elicited further data in 17% of cases. BMJ. 1998;316(7131):631.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD): Systematic reviews - CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD): Systematic reviews - CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
13.
go back to reference Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R: A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. BMC systeamtic reviews 2017, (In Press). Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R: A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. BMC systeamtic reviews 2017, (In Press).
14.
go back to reference Young T, Hopewell S: Methods for obtaining unpublished data. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2011(11):Mr000027. Young T, Hopewell S: Methods for obtaining unpublished data. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2011(11):Mr000027.
15.
go back to reference Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, Tleyjeh IM, Kamath CC, LaBella ML, Erwin PJ, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(2):138–42.CrossRef Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, Tleyjeh IM, Kamath CC, LaBella ML, Erwin PJ, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(2):138–42.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cooper C, Lovell R, Husk K, Booth A, Garside R. Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: a case study from public health and environmental enhancement. Res Synth Methods. 2017; In Press. Cooper C, Lovell R, Husk K, Booth A, Garside R. Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: a case study from public health and environmental enhancement. Res Synth Methods. 2017; In Press.
17.
go back to reference Ogilvie D, Hamilton V, Egan M, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(9):804–8.CrossRef Ogilvie D, Hamilton V, Egan M, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(9):804–8.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Cooper C, Lovell R, Husk K, Booth A, Garside R. Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: a case study from public health and environmental enhancement (in press). Res Synth Methods. 2017. Cooper C, Lovell R, Husk K, Booth A, Garside R. Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: a case study from public health and environmental enhancement (in press). Res Synth Methods. 2017.
19.
go back to reference Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2003;7(1):1–76. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2003;7(1):1–76.
Metadata
Title
Evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, cost and value of contacting study authors in a systematic review: a case study and worked example
Authors
Chris Cooper
Juan Talens Bou
Jo Varley-Campbell
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0685-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue