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

Saldanha, Ian J.; Smith, Brian M.; Ntzani, Evangelia; Jap, Jens; Balk, Ethan M; Lau, Joseph

doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1250-y

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most information describing primary studies (e.g. sample size) was collected from the four SRs and then checked within the primary studies (Saldanha et al, 2019). The information used in our metaanalyses was extracted directly from primary studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: Evidence from meta-analyses

Rosa

Larson

Collado

et al. 2021

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: evidence from meta-analysesForest therapy involves engaging in a combination of forest-based activities to improve one's health or wellbeing. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of primary studies to provide the most comprehensive summary of the effect of forest therapy on depression. We included 13 primary studies that matched our eligibility criteria -all were included in four recent SRs and were conducted in the Republic of Korea. We carried out meta-analyses with data extracted directly from these 13 studies and assessed their risk of bias. Outcomes of interest were depressive symptoms, temporary recovery from depression (i.e. remission), response to treatment (i.e. ≥ 50% reduction on depressive symptoms from baseline), adherence to treatment, and adverse effects. Considering pooled estimates from randomized controlled trials with adults, we found that compared to no intervention/usual care, forest therapy produced a greater reduction of depressive symptoms (Hedges'g = 1.18, 95% CI [0.86, 1.50], p < .00001). Also compared to no intervention/usual care, participants in the forest therapy group were 17 times as likely to achieve remission (Risk Ratio = 17.02, 95% CI [3.40, 85.21], p = .0006) and three times as likely to have a ≥ 50% reduction on depressive symptoms (Risk Ratio = 3.18, 95% CI [1.94, 5.21], p < .00001). Forest therapy, on average, reduced depressive symptoms more than engaging in similar activities in a hospital or non-forested urban area, or participating in an intervention focused on diet plus forest-based exercise. We did not find evidence that adherence to forest therapy is different from the adherence to alternative interventions and the adverse effects of forest therapy appear to be rare. These results indicate that, relative to many more conventional alternatives, forest therapy is a more effective short-term intervention for the prevention and treatment of depression in adults.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: Evidence from meta-analyses

Rosa

Larson

Collado

et al. 2021

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Systematic Review Data Repository (https:// srdr.ahrq.gov/) is another example of a platform for sharing materials specific to the systematic review community. 165 All of these open repositories should be given consideration, particularly if the completed review is to be considered for publication in a paywalled journal. The Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data principles are also a useful resource for authors to consult, 166 as they provide guidance on the best way to share information.…”

Section: Essential Elementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data, analytic code, and other materials can be uploaded to one of several publicly accessible repositories (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). The Systematic Review Data Repository (https://srdr.ahrq.gov/) is another example of a platform for sharing materials specific to the systematic review community 165. All of these open repositories should be given consideration, particularly if the completed review is to be considered for publication in a paywalled journal.…”

Section: Availability Of Data Code and Other Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

Page

Moher

Bossuyt

et al. 2021

BMJ

5,449

2,786

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PRISMA 2020 statement includes a checklist of 27 items to guide reporting of systematic reviews In this article we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews We hope that uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making on 15 April 2021 by guest. Protected by copyright.

show abstract

“…In addition, incentives can be provided to encourage researchers to deposit their data in the national public databases, 37 as data sharing can significantly limit redundancy in research and reduce the cost. 12 The third ranked reasons were “no place to deposit the data” and “lack of funding for data deposition,” which might be solved by creating governmental databases that can be used to deposit data without costs. 38 Few participants indicated their concerns about patient privacy and future publishing opportunities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,11 Moreover, data sharing can reduce redundancy and cost. 12 Finally, data sharing can enhance transparency and the subsequent minimization of false or invalid conclusions, as well as the potential of hiding "undesirable" findings. 13 Awareness of data sharing has been the subject of wellestablished debate among scientists including clinical and ethical experts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Biomedical Data Sharing Among Researchers: A Study from Jordan</p>

Al-Ebbini¹,

Khabour²,

Alzoubi³

et al. 2020

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Data sharing is an encouraged practice to support research in all fields. For that purpose, it is important to examine perceptions and concerns of researchers about biomedical data sharing, which was investigated in the current study. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey study that was distributed among biomedical researchers in Jordan, as an example of developing countries. The study survey consisted of questions about demographics and about respondent's attitudes toward sharing of biomedical data. Results: Among study participants, 46.9% (n=82) were positive regarding making their research data available to the public, whereas 53.1% refused the idea. The reasons for refusing to publicly share their data included "lack of regulations" (33.5%), "access to research data should be limited to the research team" (29.5%), "no place to deposit the data" (6.5%), and "lack of funding for data deposition" (6.0%). Agreement with the idea of making data available was associated with academic rank (P=0.003). Moreover, gender (P-value=0.043) and number of publications (P-value=0.005) were associated with a time frame for data sharing (ie, agreeing to share data before vs after publication). Conclusion: About half of the respondents reported a positive attitude toward biomedical data sharing. Proper regulations and facilitation data deposition can enhance data sharing in Jordan.

show abstract

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

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 publications

Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: Evidence from meta-analyses

Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: Evidence from meta-analyses

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

<p>Biomedical Data Sharing Among Researchers: A Study from Jordan</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About