Trial Registry Use in Surgery Systematic Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Study

Gray, Harrison; Simpson, Alainna; Bowers, Aaron; Johnson, Austin; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.067

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this, clinical trials registries are not a commonly searched source. Gray et al ( 2019 ) found that for surgery reviews, registries were used in 79.2% of Cochrane Reviews compared with 6.4% of reviews in high‐impact journals, even though they contained at least one additional relevant study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

Heath

Levay

Tuvey

2021

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Information specialists conducting searches for systematic reviews need to consider key questions around which and how many sources to search. This is particularly important for public health topics where evidence may be found in diverse sources. Objectives:The objective of this review is to give an overview of recent studies on information retrieval guidance and methods that could be applied to public health evidence and used to guide future searches. Methods: A literature search was performed in core databases and supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Results were sifted and reviewed. Results: Seventy-two papers were found and grouped into themes covering sources and search techniques. Public health topics were poorly covered in this literature. Discussion: Many researchers follow the recommendations to search multiple databases. The review topic influences decisions about sources. Additional sources covering grey literature eliminate bias but are time-consuming and difficult to search systematically. Public health searching is complex, often requiring searches in multidisciplinary sources and using additional methods.Conclusions: Search planning is advisable to enable decisions about which and how many sources to search. This could improve with more work on modelling search scenarios, particularly in public health topics, to examine where publications were found and guide future research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

Heath

Levay

Tuvey

2021

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collectively, the main systematic review bodies have provided some methodological and conceptual guidance for certain areas of the review. This is a very complex and evolving topic, which needs to be aligned with methodological advances in systematic reviews to bring clarity for reviewers and reduce variability in reporting [5,7].…”

Section: What Is the Implication And What Should Change Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

An algorithm provided as initial guidance for reporting registry records and published protocols in systematic reviews

Bidonde

Meneses-Echávez

Busch

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We aim to synthesize the available guidance with existing practices by Cochrane reviewers to generate an algorithm as a starting point in assisting reviewers reporting of registry records and published protocols (TRRs/PPs) use in systematic reviews of interventions. Study Design: We used existing guidance from major review bodies, assessed the current reporting of TRRs/PPs use in a sample of Cochrane reviews, and engaged in critical analysis. Independent reviewers identified and extracted textual excerpts reporting the use of trial registry records and published protocols and codes following a systematic review framework. Based on these elements, and our initial research, we created an algorithm/graphical aid to visualize initial direction. Results: We included 166 Cochrane systematic reviews published between August 2015 and 2016 from 48 review groups. Review authors' terminology (e.g., ongoing, terminated) varied between and within reviews. Reporting practices were diverse and inconsistent. Conclusions: This is a timely investigation in an era where evidence synthesis informs health and health care decisions. Our proposed algorithm provides initial direction to systematize the reporting of TRR/PP use. We hope that the algorithm generates further discussion to enhance the transparency of TRR/PP reporting and methodological research into the complexities of using protocols in systematic reviews of interventions.

show abstract

“…Yet, their validity relies on identification and inclusion of all relevant and available evidence, both published and unpublished. Unpublished studies, however, are often difficult and time consuming to identify, resulting in suboptimal attempts at retrieval or even complete omission from systematic reviews 34567. This incomplete inclusion is problematic given that only about half of all biomedical studies ever publish their results,8 and those that do, tend to yield more positive results and larger effect sizes than unpublished studies9 (phenomena known as publication bias and selective outcome reporting).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers

Hunter

Webster

Page

et al. 2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews should incorporate as much relevant evidence as possible to reduce bias and research waste and increase reliability of results. Clinical trials registers are a key resource for identifying potentially eligible studies, particularly those that are unpublished, and therefore searching these registers is mandated for best practice systematic reviews. However, the process of searching can be challenging and no clear and consistent guidance on how best to do this exists. This paper provides step-by-step guidance on how to conduct systematic searches for studies using clinical trials registers, with a case study to illustrate each step. The guidance encompasses where to search and how to formulate the search strategy, conduct the search, download results, screen records, obtain data, update searches, and report on these searches.

show abstract

Trial Registry Use in Surgery Systematic Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Study

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

An algorithm provided as initial guidance for reporting registry records and published protocols in systematic reviews

Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About