Why Cochrane should prioritise sharing data

Shokraneh, Farhad; Adams, Clive E; Clarke, Mike; Amato, Laura; Bastian, Hilda; Beller, Elaine; Brassey, Jon; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Davoli, Marina; Mar, Chris Del; Glasziou, Paul; Gluud, Christian; Heneghan, Carl; Hoffmann, Tammy; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Jayaram, Mahesh; Kwong, Joey S.W.; Moher, David; Ota, Erika; Sheriff, Rebecca Syed; Vale, Luke; Goldacre, Ben

doi:10.1136/bmj.k3229

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ни авторы обсуждаемой публикации, ни журнал Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews не предоставили данных в машинно-читаемом формате. Свободный доступ всех исследователей к таким данным должен стать приоритетом для Kохрейновской базы, если она претендует на лидирующие позиции в области уважаемой медицинским сообществом доказательной медицины [8,9]. Во-вторых, обращает на себя внимание вызывающая клиническая неоднородность исследований, включенных в метаанализ CD003177.…”

Section: анализ текста введения к кохрейновской публикации Cd003177unclassified

About Errors in Meta-Analyses of Cardiovascular Effects of Omega-3 PUFA Part 1. Pharmacological and Clinical Aspects of Validity in the Era of Post-Genomic Research, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analysis

Torshin¹,

Gromova²,

Kobalava³

2019

EPh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Об ошибках метаанализов сердечно-сосудистых эффектов омега-3 ПНЖК Часть 1. Фармакологические и клинические аспекты доказательности в эпоху постгеномных исследований, искусственного интеллекта и анализа больших данных Цель. В первой части статьи проанализированы ошибки клинического, фармакологического и аналитического характера, выявленные в кохрейновском метаанализе CD003177. Материал и методы. Проведена экспертная и компьютерная оценка метаанализа CD003177. Результаты. Установлены конфликт интересов авторов публикации CD003177, их очевидное предвзятое отношение к вопросу использования омега-3 полиненасыщенных жирных кислот (ПНЖК) в целях сердечно-сосудистой профилактики, сокрытие авторами методологии проведения метаанализа и реально обрабатываемых данных, высочайшая клиническая неоднородность исследований, включенных в метаанализ, беспрецедентная путаница в фармакологии и биохимии омега-3 ПНЖК, повсеместное использование манипулятивных формулировок, намеренно скрывающих научные факты, применение неадекватных критериев однородности/неоднородности клинических исследований. Заключение. Публикация CD003177, размещенная в Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, содержит многочисленные ошибки, связанные со сбором и анализом данных, и роняет престиж метаанализа, а значит, доказательной медицины. Ключевые слова: омега-3 ПНЖК, доказательная медицина, сердечно-сосудистая смертность, конфликт интересов, интеллектуальный анализ данных Работа проведена при поддержке грантов РФФИ

show abstract

Section: анализ текста введения к кохрейновской публикации Cd003177unclassified

About Errors in Meta-Analyses of Cardiovascular Effects of Omega-3 PUFA Part 1. Pharmacological and Clinical Aspects of Validity in the Era of Post-Genomic Research, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analysis

Torshin¹,

Gromova²,

Kobalava³

2019

EPh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent article in BMJ, Shokraneh et al [9] point out that Cochrane does not have an open data policy requiring data extracted during systematic reviews to be made publicly available. Whilst methods in Cochrane reviews are typically reported in sufficient detail, the 'raw' data that are extracted from studies to synthesised are not provided.…”

Section: Closed Data In Evidence Synthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science

Haddaway

2018

Environ Evid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Open Science movement can be broadly summarised as aiming to promote integrity, repeatability and transparency across all aspects of research, from data collection to publication. Systematic reviews and systematic maps aim to provide a reliable synthesis of the evidence on a particular topic, making use of methods that seek to maximise repeatability and comprehensives whilst minimising subjectivity and bias. The central tenet of repeatability is operationalised by transparently reporting methodological activities in detail, such that all actions could be replicated and verified. To date, evidence synthesis has only partially embraced Open Science, typically striving for Open Methodology and Open Access, and occasionally providing sufficient information to be considered to have Open Data for some published reviews. Evidence synthesis communities needs to better embrace Open Science not only to balance knowledge access and increase efficiency, but also to increase reliability, trust and reuse of information collected and synthesised within a review: concepts fundamental to systematic reviews and maps. All aspects of Open Science should be embraced: Open Methodology, Open Data, Open Source and Open Access. In doing so, evidence synthesis can be made more equal, more efficient and more trustworthy. I provide concrete recommendations of how CEE and others can fully embrace Open Synthesis.

show abstract

“…We usually trust the researchers but using the existing online semi-automated platforms that document the steps of the systematic reviews [8e12] could help the transparency if the team share the processes and methods openly, and share the results in findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable format as advised by FAIR principles [13]. This is not the best practice right now [14] but we have what it takes to do the systematic reviews once without being worried about RMRR that is also a requirement in update step.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like meta-analysis the search is rooted in computerized systems with certain differences: Unlike the computer programs for meta-analysis, the databases are not freely accessible to develop the search strategies or to repeat them; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (RISMA) mandates reporting of search strategy for at least one database [17], so RMRR is possible for only one database not all the databases; Last but not least, even if the authors decide to be generous in reporting the search strategies for all databases, they do not share the search results [14]. The main excuse for not sharing the search results is that the abstracts are copyrighted; however, it is and was always possible to share the search results excluding the copyrighted abstract after deduplication in RIS (RefMan/Reference Manager) format.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Cochrane should prioritise sharing data

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

About Errors in Meta-Analyses of Cardiovascular Effects of Omega-3 PUFA Part 1. Pharmacological and Clinical Aspects of Validity in the Era of Post-Genomic Research, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analysis

About Errors in Meta-Analyses of Cardiovascular Effects of Omega-3 PUFA Part 1. Pharmacological and Clinical Aspects of Validity in the Era of Post-Genomic Research, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analysis

Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science

Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About