A Web-based archive of systematic review data

Ip, Stanley; Hadar, Nira; Keefe, Sarah; Parkin, Christopher G.; Iovin, Ramon; Balk, Ethan M; Lau, Joseph

doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-15

Cited by 59 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group would be an excellent partner in this outstanding and exemplary project. A comparable suggestion has been published recently on an open, collaborative Internet-based systematic review data repository [56].…”

Section: What Could Be Improved?supporting

confidence: 54%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes

Mühlhauser¹,

Meyer

2013

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During recent years much emphasis has been on the validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability, clarity, multidisciplinary process, scheduled review and documentation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Still, CPGs show substantial variance in methodological quality. The present paper mainly focuses on two aspects that are particularly critical and contemporary from the perspective of evidence-based medicine: patient centredness and shared decision making, and conflict of interest. Sophisticated patient and consumer involvement at all stages of CPG development could be judged as being the gold standard. However, co-opting patients or consumer representatives and using other techniques of active patient involvement does not replace individual patient preferences in clinical decision-making processes. Current CPGs do not meet patient needs, since they do not provide concise, easy-to-read summaries of the benefits and risks of medicines together with more comprehensive scientific data as a prerequisite for informed or shared decision making. The vast majority of CPG panels have a financial conflict of interest (COI) and under-reporting is common. Not all organisations producing CPGs have set up COI policies, and existing policies vary widely. To solve the problem, CPG experts have recommended that methodologists without any important COI should lead the development process and have primary responsibility. There is a lot of room for other improvements through network transnational activities in the field of CPG development. Waste of time and resources should be avoided through sharing published and unpublished data identified, appraised and extracted for guideline development. The EASD could provide such a clearing house.

show abstract

Section: What Could Be Improved?supporting

confidence: 54%

“…They spend weeks and months identifying and critically appraising the evidence base. A large part of this time is spent repeating work already done by colleagues [22,56].…”

Section: What Could Be Improved?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes

Mühlhauser¹,

Meyer

2013

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…); any disagreements were resolved by consensus. We extracted data on study design and methodology, patient characteristics, interventions, comparators, outcome measures, and adverse events using a standardized electronic form in the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) (10). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leukotriene-Receptor Antagonists Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Asthma in Adults and Adolescents

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are recommended as alternative treatment in patients with mild asthma, but their effect compared with placebo is unclear. Purpose To determine the benefits and harms of LTRAs as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids compared with placebo in adults and adolescents with asthma. Data sources MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through June 2015. Study selection Peer-reviewed, English-language, randomized controlled trials in patients with asthma that reported the effect of LTRAs versus placebo on measures of asthma control. Data extraction Three researchers extracted data on the study population, interventions, outcome measures, adverse events, and study methodology were extracted in duplicate. Data synthesis Of 2008 abstracts screened, 50 trials met eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed. In six trials of LTRA monotherapy, LTRAs reduced the risk of an exacerbation (summary risk ratio [RR] = 0.60, 95% CI 0.44, 0.81). In four trials of LTRA as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids, the summary RR for exacerbation was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.07). LTRAs significantly increased FEV1 either as monotherapy or as add-on to inhaled corticosteroids, whereas FEV1 % predicted was only improved in trials of LTRA monotherapy. Adverse event rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups. Limitations Variation in definitions and reporting of outcomes, high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and possible selective outcome reporting bias. Conclusions LTRAs as monotherapy improved asthma control compared to placebo. It remains unclear however, which patients with asthma are more likely to respond to treatment with LTRAs.

show abstract

“…When comprehensive, such databases make the process of locating relevant research findings substantially less cumbersome (Lefebvre, Glanville, Wieland, Coles, & Weightman, 2013). The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR; Ip et al, 2012), as an example, provides a corpus of classified findings for use as input to meta-analysis. Drawing on such efforts, "living" systematic reviews are making possible the continual updating of meta-analytic inputs, a process championed as a vehicle for narrowing the evidence-practice gap (Elliott et al, 2014, p. 1).…”

Section: Challenge #1: Lack Of Access To Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%